2021 Supreme(SC) 370

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hrishikesh Roy, JJ.
Somesh Chaurasia – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos 590-591 of 2021 @ SLP (Crl) Nos. 4998-4999 of 2021
Decided On : 22-07-2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) India cannot have two parallel legal systems, one for rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and other for small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice.
(2) Independence of individual Judges also encompasses that they are independent of their judicial superiors and colleagues.
(3) Judges, while being undeterred in their commitment to follow law and do justice, should be wary of launching into a diatribe against State authorities without due care and reflection.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389(1) – Suspension of sentence and release on bail – Conviction for murder of father and other charges – Bail was sought to be cancelled on the ground that second respondent was implicated in an offence under Section 302 during period when his sentence was suspended – There is strong likelihood of second respondent using his political clout to prevent a fair investigation of FIR – Second respondent having evaded arrest despite issuance of a warrant of arrest and a proclamation – Second respondent has criminal antecedents – High Court by simply disposing of IAs seeking cancellation of bail ignored material considerations which ought to have weighed in the decision – High Court gave a period of ninety days to police to enquire into complaint of second respondent that he was being targeted and allowed police to thereafter proceed in accordance with law – This order had effect of obstructing a fair investigation into FIR at behest of accused despite nature and gravity of allegations against him – Clear case for cancellation of bail was established – Criminal antecedents of second respondent and the prior conviction on a charge of murder are there – Material on record indicates that an effort has been made to shield accused from administration of criminal justice – Apprehensions expressed by ASJ in his order of machinations of a highly influential accused evading process of law are amply borne out by facts which have been revealed before this Court – There is no reasonable basis to doubt anguish and concern of a Judicial Officer – That State did not oppose application under Section 319 is a feeble attempt to justify inaction of police – High Court failed in its duty to ensure that sanctity of criminal justice process is preserved – High Court by its impugned order allowed second respondent, who allegedly committed murder during period when his sentence was suspended, to continue on bail until his claim that he was being falsely implicated was first investigated in ninety days – In adopting such a procedure, High Court has clearly transgressed into an unusual domain – High Court has in effect stultified the administration of criminal justice – This court has had to step in to ensure that rule of law is preserved – Order of High Court set aside – Bail granted to second respondent shall stand cancelled. (Paras 29, 35, 37, 38 and 39)

(B) Administration of Justice – Independent and Impartial Judiciary – Independent and impartial judiciary is cornerstone of democracy – Judicial independence of district judiciary is cardinal to integrity of entire system – Courts comprised in district judiciary are first point of interface with citizens – If faith of citizen in administration of justice has to be preserved, it is to district judiciary that attention must be focused as well as higher Judiciary – Trial Judges work amidst appalling conditions – a lack of infrastructure, inadequate protection, examples of Judges being made targets when they stand up for what is right and sadly, a subservience to administration of High Court for transfers and postings which renders them vulnerable – Colonial mindset which pervades treatment meted out to district judiciary must change – It is only then that civil liberties for every stakeholder – be it accused, victims or civil society – will be meaningfully preserved in our trial courts which are first line of defence for those who have been wronged – Functioning of Judiciary as an independent institution is rooted in concept of separation of powers – Individual Judges must be able to adjudicate disputes in accordance with law, unhindered by any other factors – For that reason independence of judiciary is independence of each and every Judge – Independence of individual Judges also encompasses that they are independent of their judicial superiors and colleagues. (Paras 40 and 41)

(C) Constitution of India – Article 50 – Independence of Judiciary – Judiciary should be immune from political pressures and considerations – A Judiciary that is susceptible to such pressures allows politicians to operate with impunity and incentivizes criminality to flourish in political apparatus of State – India cannot have two parallel legal systems, one for rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and other for small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice – Existence of a dual legal system will only chip away legitimacy of law – Duty also falls on State machinery to be committed to rule of law and demonstrate its ability and willingness to follow rules it itself makes, for its actions to not transgress into domain of governmental lawlessness – At the same time, Judges, while being undeterred in their commitment to follow law and do justice, should be wary of launching into a diatribe against State authorities without due care and reflection. (Paras 42 to 45)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal arises from an order by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23 July 2019. High Court declined to entertain two applications – IA 6837 of 2019 filed by State of Madhya Pradesh and IA 5781 of 2019 filed by the appellant - seeking revocation of suspension of sentence and bail granted to the second respondent. Second respondent has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. By an order dated 3 February 2016, High Court directed that the sentence shall, during the pendency of the appeal, remain suspended under the provisions of Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

Findings of Court:

Apprehensions expressed by ASJ should be duly enquired into by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on its administrative side so that if they are found to be true, necessary action should be taken in order to secure the fair administration of justice.

Result : Appeal allowed.