New Delhi, February 5
The second judgement of a Division Bench of the Supreme Court involving Justice Markandey Katju has landed in controversy with a larger Bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, today reconsidering it and reserving its verdict on it.

The judgement pertained to a case of Bangalore-based Hewlet Packard Global Soft managing director Som Mittal, against whom liabilities were sought to be fixed in a complaint for the death of an employee, who was allegedly raped and murdered by a cab driver in 2005.

Mittal is being proceeded against under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act as head of the company for the safety of employees.

The controversy in a judgement in the case arose with Justice Katju, while writing a separate but concurring verdict on the factual and legal aspects, extended the scope of his judgement to a wider question of the arrest of a person and even issued a direction to the Uttar Pradesh government to bring an ordinance to restore the anticipatory bail provision, which the state Assembly had deleted by the 1976 amendment in the CrPC.

Justice H.K. Sema, who confined his judgement strictly to the facts and legal questions in the Mittal case, did not approve the findings of Justice Katju as neither the issue dealt by him was the subject matter of the case nor did they warrant passing a direction on the anticipatory to the UP government and on the question of arrest to all states.

In view of the differences, Justice Sema, who headed the Bench referred the judgement to the CJI for reconsideration, which was listed for hearing today.

The CJI sitting in a Bench with Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal after hearing Mittal’s counsel K.K. Venugopal and other lawyers reserved the verdict.

Venugopal raised certain important legal questions relating to Section 482 of the CrPC, giving intervention powers to the high court in criminal cases pending before the trial courts, which the apex court had said could be invoked only in “rarest of the rare” cases, two which the senior advocate had objection.

“The provision of Section 482 of the CrPC is a corrective remedy available to an accused, if trial court had committed some legal mistake in the trial.

Since Mittal was only being proceeded under the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishment Act, which did not deal with criminal aspect but provided for imposing of fine only, there was no question of invoking the ‘rarest of rare’ definition,” he said.

Venugopal, however, refrained from saying anything on Justice Katju’s observations relating to the arrests and restoring the anticipatory bail in UP, which were beyond the facts of the Mittal case.

But the apex court said the other legal issues raised from the observations were whether a single judge of a Division Bench could issue independent directions within a judgement to which the other judge had practically not agreed.

In a judgement passed by two judges of a Bench, either both have to agree on the findings or if they differ, then give dissenting separate verdicts. In that case the judgement has to be referred to a third judge for opinion.

This is the second judgement involving Justice Katju, legal experts feel raised a question on “judicial discipline”.

Justice Katju’s earlier judgement on “judicial overreach” on a PIL had also divided the legal fraternity with a section supporting it and the other terming it beyond the jurisdiction of a Division Bench when larger Benches had laid down clear directions.

Incidentally, Justice Katju’s direction for the restoration of the anticipatory bail provision in UP contradicted his own views on “judicial overreach” in the spheres of legislature and executive as it was struck down by a legislative action.