Back
2004(3) Supreme 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gujarat High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & Arijit Pasayat, JJ.
Tessta Setalvad & Anr. -Appellants
versus
State of Gujarat & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 443-445 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 530-532/2004)
Decided on 12-4-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mihir Desai, P. Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aparna Bhat, Advocates.
For the State of Gujarat : V. Madhukar, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Dr. Kailash Chand, Adolf Mathew, Sanjay Jain, Advocates.
Held : It is beyond comprehension as to how the learned Judges in the High Court could afford to overlook such a basic and vitally essential tenet of Rule of law , that no one should be condemned unheard and risk themselves to be criticised for injudicious approach and/or render their decisions vulnerable for challenge on account of violating judicial norms and ethics. The observations quoted above do not prima facie appear to have any relevance to the subject matter of dispute before the High Court. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of making observations in judgments, unless the persons in respect of whom comments and criticisms were being made were parties to the proceedings, and further were granted an opportunity of having their say in the matter, unmindful of the serious repercussions they may entail on such persons. Apart from that, when there is no relevance to the subject matter of adjudication, it is certainly not desirable for the Courts to make any comments or observations reflecting on the bonafides or credibility of any person or their actions. Judicial decorum requires dispassionate approach and the importance of issues involved for consideration is no justification to throw to winds basic judicial norms on mere personal perceptions as saviours of the situation. (Para 7)
Observations should not be made by Courts against persons and authorities, unless they are essential or necessary for decision of the case. Rare should be the occasion and necessities alone should call for its resort. Courts are temples of justice and such respect they also deserve because they do not identify themselves with the causes before it or those litigating for such causes. The parties before it and the counsel are considered to be devotees and Pandits who perform the rituals respectively seeking protection of justice, parties directly and counsel on their behalf. There is no need or justification for any unwarranted besmirching of either the parties or their causes, as a matter of routine. (Para 9)
JUDGMENT
Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.
2. In these three appeals, certain observations made by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Crl. A. No. 956/2003 with Crl. Misc. Appln. Nos. 7677/2003 and 9825/2003 are questioned by the appellants.
3. According to them, the High Court has directly and/or at any rate indirectly cast aspersions on their credibility and bonafides in helping certain persons to approach this Court for redressal of their grievances. The case before the Gujarat High Court related to an alleged communal carnage on 27th February, 2002.
4. According to the appellants, being human rights activists, they wanted to find out what is the truth and in the process, though after conclusion of the trial, it was reliability felt by them on the basis of verifications made that truth has been the resultant casualty. They had made detailed study of the situation and also met the riot-affected persons. They helped the victims in lodging FIRs, and setting up legal aid clinics for the affected victims. They claim to be anti-fundamentalists and public activists with avowed object of helping victims of communal violence. Their main and sincere objective is to maintain and preserve the secular image of the Nation, secured firmly under the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ), the supreme law of the land. Certain persons, who were not happy with the verdicts rendered by the Trial Court in the case commonly known as "Best Bakery case" also approached the appellants and they helped them in obtaining legal assistance. Unfortunately the High Court, while dealing with the appeal filed by the State of Gujarat, against the acquittal of the accused persons and other connected cases made some caustic observations casting serious aspersions on their bonafides and has used strong words like "super investigators", "anti social" and "anti-national" elements.
5. Grievance is made that not only were the observations unnecessary and contrary to the truth but also were made against persons who were not even given an opportunity to justify their action. Principles of natural justice were said to have been grossly violated.
6. Prayer is made, therefore, for deletion of the offending portions from the judgment, which according to the appellants are as follows:
In Para 15 - "It is stated at the Bar that the Citizens for Justice and Piece petitioner before the Supreme Court in this case, is situated at Mumbai. Like other affidavits, this affidavit of Sahejadkhan was also sworn before the Notary Public at Mumbai whereas this witness resides at Vadodara. From Para-22 of this affidavit it appears that an attempt is made by the journalists/human rights activists and advocate Teesta Setalvad and Mihir Desai, respectively, of the Citizens for Justice and Piece to have parallel investigating agency, whereas the statutory authority to investigate any case is Police, CBI or any other agency established under the Statute. We do not know how far it is proper but we can certainly state that it is not permissible under the law.
Para 20 "This very witness when examined before the - court seems to have stated the truth before the court, but unfortunately, it seems that for some reasons, after the pronouncement of the judgment, they fell in the hands of some, who prefer to remain behind the curtain.
x x x
Certain elements failed everywhere, at all levels, and to obstruct the development and progress of the State, and trying to misuse the process of law, so far they have not fully succeeded. Sometime back in the name of environment, matter was filed before the Apex court in Narmada matter, which was dismissed by the Apex Court. However, because of the ex parte ad interim order, they were successful in causing huge loss, running into thousands of crores of rupees to the State because of the delay in construction of the dam. Ultimately, such huge loss had to be suffered by the people of the State for no fault of their. Gujarat is very much
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
