New Delhi, June 15
The Supreme Court has cautioned high courts and subordinate judiciary against wrong application of previous judgements in cases coming before them for decision and came down heavily on the Punjab and Haryana High Court for such a lapse.
The apex court said that the judgements of the courts should not be “construed” as a piece of legislation and applied in the same manner.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court was found to be applying a previous judgement incorrectly in Faridabad-based firm AGM Management Services’ case to draw a particular conclusion even when its facts did not fit into the verdict relied upon.
“The judgements of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statue, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussion but the discussion is meat to explain (the statute) not to define (it).
Observations of the courts are neither to be read as Euclid’s theorems nor as provisions of the statues and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated,” a Bench of Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat and Mr Justice Altamas Kabir ruled in a judgement pronounced yesterday and made available to media today.
In a strongly disapproval of the approach of the High Court, the Bench directed it to hear
afresh the AGM’s petition on the issue of grant of no objection certificate (NOC) in accordance with the law. It was directed to dispose of the case as early as possible because fate of many other cases pending before the High Court depended upon the final outcome in the AGM’s matter. The Supreme Court said correct interpretation of the law as the essence of judicial pronouncements and any “circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases blindly placing reliance on decisions is not proper.”
The guidelines against casual approach in deciding the cases came on the appeal of Haryana Government, questioning the legality of the High Court verdict, disposing of the AGM’s petition by applying Ramesh Chand case judgement of 2005.
The Government counsel had contended that the High Court had not indicated as to how the Ramesh Chand case was applicable in the AGM’s petition.
Allowing the
Government appeal, the apex court agreed that the judgement relied upon had no “relevance” in the case.
“We find that the High Court has not even indicated as to applicability of the decision in Ramesh Chand’s case to facts of the present case,” the Bench said, making it clear to the high courts and subordinate judiciary that reliance on a previous judgement could not be placed without discussing how the factual situation in the present case fit in with the factual situation of the previous case.
“Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgements. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not be interpreted as statutes,” the apex court held.
