Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 627

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana, Uday Umesh Lalit, Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
M. Siddiq (D) Thr. Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
Mahant Suresh Das - Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 10866-10867 of 2010 With C.A. No. 4768-4771 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 2636 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 821 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 4739 of 2011 (III-A), IA 95540 of 2018) C.A. No. 4905-4908 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 2215 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 4740 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 2894 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 6965 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 4192 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 5498 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 7226 of 2011 (III-A), C.A. No. 8096 of 2011 (III-A), Diary No. 22744 of 2017 (XI), W.P.(C) No. 294 of 2018 (X)
Decided On : 10-01-2019

Advocates appeared:
Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Vrinda Grover, Advocate, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Tanya Shree, Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh, Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, Ms. Hamsini Shankar, Mr. Zain Maqbool, Mr. M. Abdullah, Ms. Ratna Appnender, Mr. Soutik Banerjee, Ms. Siddhi Padia, Advocates. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Yusuf Hatim Muchhala, Sr. Advocate Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, Ms. Akriti Chaubey, Ms. Qurratulain, Ms. Tanya Shree, Mr. Kunwar Aditya Singh and Mr. M. Abdullah, Advocates, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Advocates, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Harish N. Salve, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Mr. P.K. Singh, Ms. Aditi, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Sandeep Singh, Mr. Pranav Kumar, Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Babul Kumar, Mr. Y. Lokesh, Advocates, Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. Raghvendra Singh, Sr. Adv., AG, UP, Mr. Madan Mohan Pandey, AAG, UP, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, UP, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ms. Manvi Dikshit Sharma, Mr. Aviral Saxena, Mr. Avnish Pandey, Mr. Harish, Advocates. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR, Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Mohd. Parvez Dabas, Ms. Uzmi Jameel Husain, Mr. Daanish Ahmad Syed, Mr. Pulkit Chandna, Mr. Niaz Ahmad Farooqui, Mr. Mohd. Shakim, Advocates, Mr. Riyaz Ahmad Jaan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. Milan Laskar, Ms. Kanika Chauhan, Mr. Haris Osmani, Mr. Pulkit Chandna, Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR, Mr. Pankaj Kumar Verma, Mr. Vinay Rajput, Mr. K.K. Khurana, Mr. M.K. Pandey, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Raj Kumar Parashar, Advocates, Mr. Vishnu Shankar, AOR, Mr. Ramjee Pandey, AOR, Mr. Anoop Bose, Mr. Girijesh Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Tarun Verma, Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Mr. Harsh Jain, Ms. Ankita Gupta, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Mr. Abhinav Deshwal, Advocates, for Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. Arjun Sain, Mr. Prabhoo Dayal Tiwari, Ms. Priya Sharma, Mr. P. Raj Chauhan, Mr. Arjun Sain, Advocates, Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. Prakash Sharma, Mr. Mohd. Naved, Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Mr./Ms. Prakrati Raj, Advocates, Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Mr. Yash Mishra, Mr. Ankit Raj, Ms. Indira Bhakhar, Mr. Rajesh Singh, Mr. Vineet Pandey, Ms. Nidhi Jaiswal, Mr. Santosh Kumar, Mr. T. Bhaskar Gowtham, Advocates Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Advocate, Mr. M.R. Shamshad, AOR, Mr. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Ms. Sarah Haque, Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, Advocates, Mr. Vivek Tankha, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Ms. Swati Sinha, Ms. Sukanya Basu, Advocates for M/S. Fox Mandal & Co., AOR, Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR, Mr. Syed Mansoor Ali, Mr. Mohd. Tayyab Khan, Mr. Mujeebuddin, Mr. Zeeshan Rizvi, Advocates, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR, Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Raunak Parekh, Ms. Gitanjali N. Sharma, Advocates, Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr. B.P. Gupta, Advocate, Mr. S.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Sudhakar Dwivedi, Mr. A. Deb Kumar, Advocates, Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr./Ms. A. Deepa, Mr. Vikrant Yadav, Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Advocates, Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Satinder Singh, Mr. K.K.L. Gautam, Mr. Thomas Franklin Caezar, Mr. D.K. Pradhan, Mr. Rohul Mohod, Mr. Rachit Kumar, Advocates For Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, for the Appearing Parties; S. Manoj Selvaraj, Ms. J. Vijetha, Mr. C. Solomon, Mr. R. Naveen Raj, Ms. M.K. Aswathi, Advocates, Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, Mr. Vijendra Kasana, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Rajendra Kr. Singh, Mr. Umesh Baba Chaurasia, Mr. Puneet Sheoran, Mr. Nisarg Chaudhary, Ms. Rita Gupta, Ms. Deepshika Bharati, Mr. Sujit Kumar, Mr. R.K. Rajwanshi, Mr. Acharya Santosh Pd. Chaursiya, Mr. Acharya Santosh Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Mr. Vipin Saxena, Mr. Shiv Kumar Tiwari, Advocates Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR, Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Mr. Vishwanath B. Gadnis, Mr. Ashok Shrivastava, Advocates, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, Mr. B.N. Dubey, Ms. Devika Gulati, Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Mr. Robin Khokhar, Advocates, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Ms. Babita Yadav, Mr. B.N. Dubey, Mr. Pulkit, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, AOR, Ms. Babita Yadav, Mr. Pulkit, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. P.S. Narsimha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, AOR, Mr. Yash Mishra, Mr. Vikas Singh Jangra, Mr. Sarthak Nayak, Mr. Shridhar Pottaraju, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Mr. Prakash Gautam, Mr. Amit Kumar Pathak, Mr. V.C. Shukla, Mr. Rahul G. Tanwani, Mr. Rishi Raj Sharma, Mr. Tushar Thareja, Mr. Sayooj Mohandas and Mr. Praneet Pranav, Advocates, Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR, Mr. Barun Kumar sinha, Mrs. Pratibha Sinha, Mr. Birendra Kumar Choudhary, Mr. Arun Kumar, Mr. Aditya Sharma, Mr. Swatantra Rai, Advocates, Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR, Mr. B.K. Satija, AOR, Mr. Ajay Bansal, Mr. Gaurav Yadava, Ms. Veena Bansal, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Ms. Shweta Bharti, Mr. Shantanu, Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Mr. Awadesh Kumar, Mr. Virendra Chaubey, Mr. Gopal Jha, Mr. Gunratan Pandey, Advocates, Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. Jitendra Tripathy, Mr. Karunesh Kumar Shukla, Mr. Shiv Ram Pandey, Mr. Jugal Kishore, Advocates, Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, Mr. Vishwanath Gadnis, Mr. Amit Pawan, Advocates, Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, AOR, Mr. Atif Suhrawardi, Mrs. Shamama Anis, Mr. Tabrez Ahmed, Mr. Mohd. Noorullah, Mr. Md. Tashreeq Ahmed, Advocates, Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Binu Tamta, Mr. T.C. Sharma, Advocates, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, AOR, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, AOR, Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Mr. Bharat Sood, Mr. Ayush Anand, Mr. Shubhendu Anand, Mr. Ankit Raj, Mr. R.K. Rajvanshi, Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Rathore, Ms. Vidyottamma, Mr. Sai Deepak, Mr. Ravindra Lokhande, Mr. Mukul Singh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Harshit Kaushik, Advocates, Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR, Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR, Mr. Manoj V. George, Mr. Rifat Ara Butt, Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, Advocates, Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, AOR, Mr. Lakshmi Raman Singh, AOR, Ms. V.N. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Ms. Nanita Sharma, Mr. Ravi Shankar Kumar, Mr. Sachin Pahwa, Advocates, Mr. R.N. Venjrani, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. S.K. Rajora and For A.S. Syyed, Advocates. Mr. Sriram P., AOR.

IMPORTANT POINTS
Reclusion by a Judge is his discretion.
Constitution of Benches is prerogative of the CJI.
The Materials on record should be translated in English for hearing.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - One member of the Bench stated to have appeared in a connected matter - Said member recusing himself from the case - Matter adjourned. (Para 2, 3)
       (b) Supreme Court Rules, 2013 - Order 6, Rule 1 - Constitution of Benches - Chief Justice has full discretion to constitute Benches of appropriate strength as deemed fit - Instantly, Court in (1994) 6 SCC 360 directing placing the matter before a three Judge Bench - However, matter placed before a Constitution Bench comprising five judges - Not questionable. (Para 5, 6)
       (1994) 6 SCC 360 - Referred
       (c) Practice and Procedure - 120 issues framed in the suits for trial - 88 witnesses examined - Depositions of the witnesses running into 13,886 pages - 257 documents exhibited - Most of it not in English - Registry directed to physically inspect the records; make an assessment of the time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of requisite number - Registry to give a report to the Court on 29th January, 2019. (Para 9)
       Facts of the case:
       Reclusion by a Judge is his discretion.
       Constitution of Benches is prerogative of the CJI.
       The Materials on record should be translated in English for hearing.
       Result: Matter adjourned. Directions given.

ORDER :

1. Today is fixed for fixing a date of hearing and for drawing up of a time schedule for hearing of the cases before us.

2. Before the Court could be addressed on any of the aforesaid issues, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal No.10866-10867 of 2010 made a statement that a member of the Bench (Uday Umesh Lalit, J.) had appeared in a connected matter sometime in the year 1997. Dr. Dhavan has further pointed out that though he has no objection to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit hearing the matter the ultimate decision in this regard is for the learned Judge to take.

3. The said facts being pointed out, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit has expressed his disinclination to participate in the hearing any further. We, therefore, have no option but to adjourn the case to another date for the same purpose i.e. to fix a date of hearing and to draw up a time schedule for hearing of the case.

4. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan has also pointed out the judgment and order of this Court dated 27th September, 2018 by which a reference of the correctness of the judgment of this Court in Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 360 was refused to be made to a Constitution Bench. Dr. Dhavan has drawn the attention of the Court to certain speculations prevailing as to why the matter has now been fixed for hearing before a Five Judges Bench though the Three Judges Bench by aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th September, 2018 had expressly directed that the matter be listed before a Three Judges Bench.

5. The decision to post the matter before a Five Judges Bench had been taken by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side in exercise of his powers under Order 6, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 which mandates that "every cause, appeal or matter shall be heard by a Bench consisting of not less than two Judges nominated by the Chief Justice."

6. Order 6, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 prescribes the minimum numerical strength of the Bench and it is always open for the Hon'ble Chief Justice to decide, having regard to the various relevant facts and circumstances, which cannot be exhaustively laid down, to constitute Benches of such strength that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice deems it proper. This is how the present bench of five Judges has been constituted which is, in no way, contrary to what has been laid down by the Three Judges Bench in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 27th September, 2018.

7. The Secretary General of the Registry has informed the Chief Justice that in the four suits, out of which these appeals have arisen, in all, 120 issues have been framed for trial. A total of 88 witnesses were examined. The depositions of the witnesses run into 13,886 pages. A total of 257 documents were exhibited (according to Dr. Rajeev Dhavan the number of Exhibits is 533 including 3 Archaeological Reports). The judgment runs into 4304 printed pages (according to the Registry, 8533 typed pages). The Bench has been informed that the original records are lying in 15 sealed trunks in a room which has also been sealed. Whether the depositions and documents which are in Persian, Sanskrit, Arabic, Gurumukhi, Urdu and Hindi, etc. have been translated is not clear.

8. The orders of this Court, particularly, the order dated 10th August, 2015 indicate that though the learned counsels for the parties had attempted to submit some translated version of the evidence there is a dispute with regard to the correctness of the translations made.

9. In these circumstances, the Registry of this Court is directed to physically inspect the records which are lying under lock and key; make an assessment of the time that will be taken to make the cases ready for hearing by engaging, if required, official translators of the requisite number and give a report thereof to the Court. The said report will be submitted to this Court by the Registry on 29th January, 2019 whe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2019 Supreme(SC) 627

IMPORTANT POINTSReclusion by a Judge is his discretion.Constitution of Benches is prerogative of the CJI.The Materials on record should be translated in English for hearing.

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

Plastikos Packaging VS Commissioner of Central Excise, Allahabad

SYSTEMS MANUFACTURING LTD VS SYSTEMS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 665

JOGENDRA SINGH VS SURESH MANJULAPUR - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 662

MYSORE WINE PRODUCTS AND ALLIED CO. LTD. , BANGALORE VS PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE - 2000 Supreme(Kar) 663

Bose VS State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Salaikiramam P. S. , - 2000 Supreme(Mad) 1273

Jain Construction Company VS State of Rajasthan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 912

Voltas Limited VS Joint Collector, Medak - 2000 Supreme(AP) 945

STATE OF BIHAR VS SURENDRA SINGH RAUTELA ALIAS BENGALI - 2000 Supreme(Jhk) 45

Krishna Kumar VS Gulab Khan - 2000 Supreme(Raj) 1546

KARSANBHAI DAHYABHAI PARMAR VS DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE - 2000 Supreme(Guj) 1009

IMPORTANT POINTS
Reclusion by a Judge is his discretion.
Constitution of Benches is prerogative of the CJI.
The Materials on record should be translated in English for hearing.