TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: The recent pronouncement by the Supreme Court reinforces the foundational principle that judicial decisions, made by competent judges within their jurisdiction, cannot be challenged as violating fundamental rights.
EXPLANATION:
- The Court cited the precedent set in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, emphasizing the sanctity of judicial decisions in relation to matters brought before the court.
Background: Writ Petition Under Article 32
- Petitioner’s Grievance:
- The petitioner, aggrieved by the delay in the hearing of his criminal appeal in the High Court, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution.
- Court’s Observations:
- The Court noted that a judicial decision’s challenge based on infringement of fundamental rights is not permissible.
- Emphasized that the delay in the listing of the case is part of the judicial process and cannot be challenged under Article 32.
Writ Petition Dismissed: Maintaining Judicial Process Integrity
- Maintainability of Article 32 Petition:
- The Court asserted that a writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable against the High Court’s order on case listing.
- Limited Scope of Writ Remedy:
- If seeking bail pending the criminal appeal, the petitioner must resort to an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Dismissed the writ petition as “misconceived.”
Judicial Powers and Mutual Respect: Supreme Court vs. High Courts
- No Superintendence Powers Over High Courts:
- The Court highlighted the absence of provisions conferring superintendence powers on the Supreme Court over High Courts in Chapter-IV of the Constitution.
- Reference to Constitutional Scheme:
- Cited Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1, emphasizing the clear division of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Stressed the importance of mutual respect between the two institutions in the constitutional scheme.
Inappropriate Exercise of Discretionary Jurisdiction: Court’s Verdict
- Dismissing the Petition:
- The Court asserted that issuing the requested direction would be an inappropriate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
- Emphasized that such action would show disrespect to another constitutional court.
- Role of Supreme Court in Such Matters:
- Even if the Article 32 petition is deemed maintainable, the Court’s role is limited to requesting the High Court, not issuing directives.
ARTICLE 32:
- It is titled “Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part”.
- Article 32(1): The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.
- Article 32(2): The Supreme Court shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warrant and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by this Part.
- Article 32(3): Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the Supreme Court by clauses (1) and (2), Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of its jurisdiction ill or any of the powers exercisable by the Supreme Court under clause (2).
- Article 32(4): The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise provided for by this Constitution.
Conclusion: Upholding Judicial Integrity and Inter-Institutional Respect
- The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the independence of judicial decisions and affirms the need for respect between constitutional courts.
- By dismissing the writ petition and underscoring the limited scope of intervention, the Court ensures the integrity of the judicial process and upholds the principles enshrined in the constitutional scheme.