New Delhi, February 21
In a rare instance in the history of the Supreme Court, the apex body today negated a portion of a controversial judgement of Justice Markandey Katju in Bengalore-based software company’s former MD Som Mittal’s case as a Bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, found his order going beyond the issues in the case.
“In so far as the observations, recommendations, and directions in paras 17 to 39 of the concurring judgement (of Justice Katju), suffice it to say that they do not relate to the subject matter of the criminal appeal (of Mittal) and being the expression of an expectation or hope by only one of the learned judges constituting the Bench and not agreed by the other, is not a decision, or order or direction of the court,” the CJI said overriding the verdict of Justice Katju.
In a clear direction, the CJI, in a corrective judgement, which apparently reflected his anguish, said the recommendations issued by Justice Katju in paras 17 to 39 of his judgement “are not direction to be complied with”.
These paras related to Justice Katju’s recommendations to the Uttar Pradesh government to take steps to restore the provision of anticipatory bail in the state deleted from the CrPC by an amendment by the state Assembly and a direction to all states to implement apex court’s 1994 order in Joginder Kumar’s case that restrained police from arresting an accused the moment a complaint was lodged.
Justice Katju in a concurring verdict with presiding judge H.K. Sema in Mittal’s case had treaded beyond the issue that had come for decision and it had created a lot of controversy in the legal circle. Justice Sema not agreeing with many of the findings of Justice Katju, had referred the case to the CJI for fresh hearing by a larger Bench.
The Bench of the CJI with Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal in today’s corrective verdict said: “There is no question of appellate court travelling beyond and making observations alien to the case.”
“Any opinion, observation, comment or recommendation de hors (alien) the subject of the appeal, may lead to confusion in the minds of litigants, members of public and the authorities as they will not know how to regulate their affairs, or whether to act upon it.”
The Bench said even if the appellate court felt a need to make comments upon an issue not raised in a case before it, the prudent thing for the Bench hearing it was to do so only after issuing notices to the parties against whom the comments were intended and seek their views before saying anything.
The CJI, apparently reflecting his anguish, said: “When this court renders judgements, it does so with great care and responsibility. The law declared by this court is binding on all courts. All authorities in the territory of India are required to act in aid of it. Any interpretation of a law or a judgement by this court is a law declared by this court.”
“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 ensure that the court’s orders and decisions do not create any doubt or confusion in regard to the legal position in minds of any authority or citizen. And also to ensure that they do not conflict with any other decision or existing law,” the court declared.
