Patna High Court Scrutinizes Bench's Power to Initiate Suo Motu Case Outside Roster in Lawyer Assault Matter

Patna, Bihar – In a significant move that underscores the principles of judicial discipline and administrative propriety, the Patna High Court has turned the lens inward, questioning the very maintainability of a suo motu case initiated by one of its own division benches concerning an alleged assault on two High Court lawyers. The matter has brought to the forefront critical questions about the powers of a bench to entertain matters outside its designated roster and the procedural prerequisites for exercising suo motu jurisdiction.

The case, which originated from an alleged assault on two lawyers by school guards outside Delhi Public School, Patna, came up for hearing before a bench led by Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha. However, instead of delving into the merits of the assault allegations, the Acting Chief Justice's bench focused on a fundamental procedural question: the competence of the bench that first took up the matter.

At the outset of the hearing, the Acting Chief Justice framed the primary issue, stating, "We want parties to address us on whether Division Bench-3 could entertain the motion/urgency application related to this matter when it has no roster on this subject."

The Genesis of the Jurisdictional Conundrum

The controversy began on September 9, when a division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey (referred to as DB-3) took cognizance of the alleged assault based on oral submissions. This bench registered the matter as a suo motu criminal writ case. The core of the current issue lies in whether this action was permissible, given that DB-3 was not assigned the roster to hear such matters.

The roster, a system meticulously managed by the Chief Justice as the 'Master of the Roster,' is the bedrock of judicial administration. It allocates specific subjects and categories of cases to different benches to ensure an orderly and transparent dispensation of justice. Any deviation from this established procedure can raise questions of jurisdiction and judicial overreach.

The Acting Chief Justice’s bench highlighted this very principle, noting that while parties are free to mention urgent matters before any bench, the crucial question is whether a bench lacking the designated roster can take judicial notice of the issue and initiate formal proceedings.

State Government Raises Objections on Procedure and Remedies

Appearing for the state government, the Advocate General expressed surprise that the matter was mentioned and entertained in the first place. He informed the court that the aggrieved lawyers had already met with him on the afternoon of the incident, and he had promptly escalated the matter to the Senior Superintendent of Police.

The Advocate General argued against the invocation of writ jurisdiction for directing a police investigation. He submitted that criminal law provides a well-defined procedural path for such grievances. "Writ jurisdiction can't be invoked to seek a probe in a particular manner," he asserted, pointing out that the investigation of cognizable offenses is the domain of the police. He further added that if a complainant is dissatisfied with the police investigation, alternative remedies are available, such as filing a protest petition before a magistrate.

This argument touches upon the delicate balance of powers between the judiciary and the executive. Courts are generally reluctant to micromanage police investigations through writ petitions, especially when statutory remedies have not been exhausted.

The Court Acknowledges Its Own Limits

Reinforcing the principle of judicial restraint, the bench led by the Acting Chief Justice clarified its own limitations in such matters. In a candid oral observation, the Acting Chief Justice stated, "Even we don't have the power to direct police to arrest the accused and we are not going to give any such direction."

This statement is a powerful reminder of the separation of powers, where the judiciary’s role is to ensure due process and fairness, not to usurp the executive functions of law enforcement agencies.

The counsel pressing for action in the assault case defended the mentioning before DB-3, stating that no FIR had been lodged by 3:30 PM on the day of the incident. He submitted that since a female advocate had also allegedly been abused, it was deemed proper to bring the matter to the court's immediate attention. His primary prayer, he clarified, was to ensure a fair investigation.

The court, however, was not convinced by the presumption of an unfair probe. Questioning how it could be speculated that a proper investigation would not be conducted, the bench observed that authorities must be given "breathing time" to take necessary action.

Directions Issued and Key Questions Framed for Adjudication

Finding the grievance to be not "crystal clear" in the absence of a formal application detailing the specific reliefs sought, the court refused to issue any substantive directions on the alleged assault. Instead, it adjourned the matter for a week, directing the counsels to first address two pivotal legal questions:

• Whether Division Bench-3, with its assigned roster, could have taken suo motu judicial notice based on oral submissions and subsequently sought the Acting Chief Justice's approval on the administrative side?
• What specific relief is being sought in this matter?

By framing these questions, the court has initiated a crucial inquiry into the procedural sanctity of its own operations. The outcome of this deliberation will have significant implications for how urgent matters are mentioned and how suo motu powers are exercised within the High Court.

In the interim, to ensure the underlying grievance is not ignored, the court has directed the Investigating Officer to place an update on the steps taken in the investigation before it on the next hearing date. This balanced approach ensures that while the larger questions of judicial propriety are examined, the initial complaint of the lawyers is also monitored.

This case serves as an important judicial moment, promising to clarify the procedural contours governing the functioning of High Court benches. It reaffirms that the exercise of judicial power, even for a just cause, must adhere strictly to the established rules of jurisdiction and procedure to maintain the integrity and predictability of the justice delivery system.