The Hindu : New Delhi News : Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court direction to judge but raises questions over magisterial power

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Oct 27, 2007
ePaper

New Delhi

New Delhi

Supreme Court stays Delhi High Court direction to judge but raises questions over magisterial power

J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed a direction issued by the Delhi High Court to an Additional Sessions Judge to undergo three months’ training at the Delhi Judicial Academy as he lacked “basic knowledge of criminal law”. The High Court had taken exception to an order passed by the Judge issuing a non-bailable warrant against a man accused of electricity theft, declining him bail, and initiating steps to declare him a proclaimed offender.

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan, Justice R. V. Raveendran and Justice V. S. Sirpurkar stayed the impugned direction on a special leave petition filed by the Judge, Rakesh Tewari of the Karkardooma courts in Delhi, against the High Court order dated October 5.

Senior counsel Dushyant Dave made a mention before the Bench about the special leave petition and pleaded for stay of the judgment contending that it would be a humiliation not only for the petitioner but also for the institution.

The Chief Justice of India told counsel that the Supreme Court in a recent judgment (the Chief Justice was part of the Bench that delivered the judgment) had stated that no magistrate shall issue a non-bailable warrant without following due procedure.

The Chief Justice told counsel: “How can he [the petitioner] declare a person as proclaimed offender? You [counsel] say that he [petitioner] had served as a Public Prosecutor before becoming a judge. He must know that such an order has serious civil consequences. It involves the liberty of a person. He cannot be showing the power of his magistracy like this. Some judicial officers derive sadistic pleasure by issuing NBWs and in passing such orders.”

Counsel said “the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge may be a mistake but if the direction is implemented it would ruin his career”.

He pleaded for a stay of the impugned direction and deletion of the remarks made by the High Court.

The Bench in its brief order rejected the plea for deletion of the remarks, but gave liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court for appropriate relief in two weeks and stayed the impugned direction meanwhile.

The High Court in its October 5 order had observed that the Judge lacked even elementary knowledge about the Code of Criminal Procedure and it would be appropriate he underwent a refresher course at the Delhi Judicial Academy for three months. The special leave petition was directed against this order.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail