JUDGMENT :

M. Sundar, J.

1. It is often said that interpretation is a journey of discovery, which is not akin to a regular journey of discussion and dispositive reasoning which predominantly turns on 'construction'. Interpretation (unlike construction) is more in the nature of determining the idea of legal meaning of a Statute. Interpretation is a jurisprudential journey as it is the process of sifting a statute and/or its provisions to seek the intention of the Legislature. In this order, we had embarked upon such a jurisprudential journey, which under the normal circumstances should have reached its destination before the dawn of December 2020, but that was not to be owing to the Corona virus pandemic and consequent lock down, which is now widely and commonly referred to as 'Covid-19 situation'; Covid-19 was something which we did not portend or presage when this journey commenced on 17.02.2020 and thereafter we had no means of prophesying that it would impact one of us and personal staff of another of us.

2. We are much conscious over the joint effort to raise the efficiency and therefore, we feel it appropriate to state as to why there is a little delay in delivering this judgment, though it is not imperative for us to narrate the reasons, we believe that keeping a clear conscience is always better. We can speak only through our order with none to articulate these facts if this order is assailed in the Apex Court. Owing to conflict of judgments with regard to human rights violations, these batch of cases were referred to us by constitution of a Special Bench by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice, for a firm judicial pronouncement on the said aspect. These matters were heard by us on several listings/days in virtual Courts (Web hearing on a video conferencing platform) and finally judgment in this case was reserved on 29.09.2020.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade and another vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others [Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 (SLP(C) No. 11626 of 2020), decided on 29.10.2020, referring to its earlier decision in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar reported in 2001 (7) SCC 318, was pleased to hold as under:

"3. ... It is not necessary to reproduce the directions except to state that normally the judgment is expected within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. If, for any reason, no judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the parties is entitled to move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments."

S. Vaidyanathan, J.

4. After reserving judgment in these batch of cases, one of us (Justice S. Vaidyanathan) was deputed to the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court for three months and thereafter, one of our Personal Assistants was affected with Covid-19 and there were sudden deaths of two parents of two Personal Staff, all of which made us postpone our dictation for a short while and continue thereafter. Thereafter, all of a sudden, one of us (Justice S. Vaidyanathan) was hospitalized for few days and soon after recovery, another one of us (V. Parthiban, J.) tested Covid-19 positive and was hospitalized for a considerable period. Owing to such circumstances beyond our control, we have been forced to defer the continuation of our dictation consecutively, as each one of us has played a role in shaping the judgment, so as to put in all the finesse and felicity at our command in articulation. As Constitutional functionaries, we owe the responsibility of delivery of orders at the earliest, but there may be certain circumstances, which may be beyond the control of humans, like the present situation.

5. We have thought it appropriate and pertinent to write this prefatory no