The Hindu : National : Apex court objects to Judge’s directions to U.P.

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 22, 2008
ePaper | Mobile/PDA Version

National

National

Apex court objects to Judge’s directions to U.P.

Legal Correspondent

Matter relates to case involving Som Mittal

Courts cautioned on passing judgments
Says law declared by it is binding on all courts

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, disapproving the recommendations and directions given by Justice Markandey Katju in the Som Mittal case, held that they were not instructions to be complied with by the Uttar Pradesh government and others.

The Court’s observations came on a matter referred to it by a Division Bench, comprising Justices H. K. Sema and Markandey Katju, relating to a criminal case in Karnataka involving Mr. Mittal, former Managing Director of Hewlett Packard Global Software Ltd.

On January 29, the Bench of Mr. Justice Sema and Mr. Justice Katju dismissed Mr. Mittal’s appeal. However, in the same judgment, Mr. Justice Katju recommended that the Uttar Pradesh government issue an ordinance to restore the provision for anticipatory bail to an accused.

The State government amended the Cr.P.C. in 1976 to withdraw this provision.

Subsequent to the judgment, Mr. Justice Sema, in a brief reference order, said: “the appeal [of Mr. Mittal] is dismissed in terms of the signed judgments. Since there is difference of opinion [between two judges] on the legal issue, let the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.”

Accordingly, a three-Judge Bench, headed by the Chief Justice, considered the legal issues, viz. whether the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised (by High Courts) “sparingly” or “sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases”? And whether the recommendations and directions relating to anticipatory bail and enforcement of the directions were warranted in this case?

Answering the reference, the Bench that included Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal pointed out that Mr. Mittal’s appeal neither related to grant of anticipatory bail nor it related to rights of arrested persons.

‘Confine to subject matter’

Writing the judgment, the Chief Justice said: “This court has repeatedly cautioned that while rendering judgments, courts should deal only with the subject matter of the case and issues involved therein. They should desist from issuing directions affecting the Executive or legislative policy, or general directions unconnected with the subject matter of the case. A court may express its views on a particular issue in appropriate cases only where it is relevant to the subject matter of the case.”

The Bench observed that there was no question of the appellate court travelling beyond and making observations alien to the case.

Avoid confusion

Any opinion, observation, comment or recommendation de hors the subject of the appeal may lead to confusion in the minds of litigants, members of the public and the authorities as they would not know how to regulate their affairs, or whether to act upon it.

The Bench said:

“When this Court renders judgments, it does so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this Court is binding on all courts. The wider the power, more onerous is the responsibility to ensure that nothing is stated or directed in excess of what is required or relevant for the case, and to ensure that the Court’s orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to a legal position in the minds of any authority or citizen, and also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law.

“Insofar as the observations, recommendations and directions of the concurring judgment, suffice it to say that they do not relate to the subject matter of the criminal appeal and being the expression of an expectation or hope by only one of the learned Judges constituting the Bench and not agreed to by the other, is not a decision, order or direction of the Court. That being so, the directions are not directions to be complied with.”

Quashing powers

On exercising powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., it said: “The power to quash the proceedings [of a criminal case] should not be used mechanically or routinely but with care and caution, only when a clear case for quashing is made out and failure to interfere would lead to a miscarriage of justice.”

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

National