Courts should "desist" from issuing general directions: SC

In a strong disapproval of a Supreme Court judge's direction, a Bench headed by Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan held that courts should "desist" from issuing general directions affecting executive and legislative policy unconnected to a particular case. The court must ensure that its orders and decision do not create any doubt or confusion on legal position in the minds of any authority or citizen, a three-judge bench, including Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal said. The court's criticism 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 Som Mittal, former Managing Director of Hewlett Packard Global Software Ltd. While dismissing Mittal's appeal against prosecution, Justice Katju, in a concurring but separate judgement, had given directions to Uttar Pradesh government to issue an Ordinance for restoring the provisions of anticipatory bail in the state. However, the three-judge Bench held that Katju's directions "are not directions to be complied with". The criminal case relates to the rape and murder of a woman software professional Pratibha Srikant Murty in Bangalore by the driver of the company car while she was returning home from a workplace on 13th December 2005. The Bench noted that the appeal did not relate to grant of anticipatory bail or rights of arrested persons. "Courts should desist from issuing directions affecting executive or legislative policy, or general directions unconnected with the subject matter of the case," the Bench said. The Chief Justice said "there is no question of the appellate court travelling beyond and making observations alien to the case". "Any opinion, observation, comment or recommendation de hors the subject of the appeal, may lead to confusion in the minds of the litigants, members of public and authorities as they will not know how to regulate their affairs or whether to act upon it," the three-judge said. While critical of the observations, recommendations and directions of the concurring judgement by Katju, the larger bench said "suffice 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 judges constituting the bench and not agreed to by the other (Justice Sema), is not a decision, order or direction of the court". The Bench said the directions issued to the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, State governments and Union Territories and recommendations to the Uttar Pradesh Government "are not directions to be complied with". The Chief Justice said the apex court should deal with "great care" and "responsibility" the matters before it as the law declared by it is "binding" on all courts. "All authorities in territory of India are required to act in aid of it (apex court). Any interpretation of a law or a judgement by this court, is a law declared by this court," Justice Balakrishnan said. "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...," the CJI said. The apex court said another aspect that requires to be kept in mind is the fact that even when it becomes necessary, for a court for whatsoever reason, to decide or to comment upon an issue not raised by the parties, "it may do so only after notifying the parties concerned so that they can put forth their views on such an issue". While making it clear that only the legal issue was referred to it by Justice Sema, the three-judge bench said it did not affect the final decision of the division bench that dismissed Mittal's appeal. The bench of Chief Justice also deliberated on two issues, vis-a-vis directions relating to anticipatory bail in Uttar Pradesh and whether section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing FIR should be exercised "sparingly" and in "rarest of rare cases". Sema had observed that the provision was to be used sparingly with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases by merely reiterating the apex court's prevous judgements. The court clarified that the words "rarest of rare" merely emphasise and reiterate what is intended to be conveyed by words "sparingly and with circumspection". "The expression rarest of rare cases is not used in the sense in which it is used with reference to punishment for offences under section 302 (murder) of IPC, but to emphasise that the power under section 482 of CrPC to quash the FIR or criminal proceedings should be used sparingly and with circumspection," the court said. "Some words used in the a judgement should be read and understood contextually and are not intended to be taken literally. Many a time a judge uses a phrase or expression with the intention of emphasising a point or accentiating a principle or even by way of a flourish of writing style," it said.

"Loved reading this piece by Prakash Yedhula?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Join our Telegram group

Join our Whatsapp group