This Week in Law: SC Tackles HC Benches, Electoral Rolls; Key Rulings on Article 227 and Police Powers

New Delhi - The past week has been marked by significant judicial activity, with the Supreme Court engaging with fundamental questions of democratic process and judicial administration. From scrutinizing the establishment of a new High Court bench to hearing challenges against the electoral roll revision process, the apex court's calendar was packed. Concurrently, a crucial ruling clarified the limits of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, while the Bombay High Court delivered a definitive judgment curbing the power of police to freeze bank accounts under the new criminal code. These developments, set against the backdrop of Constitution Day celebrations, underscore the dynamic interplay between constitutional principles and their practical application.

Supreme Court Examines Creation of Kolhapur Bench, Petitioner's Locus Questioned

In a hearing that touches upon the core principles of judicial accessibility and administrative procedure, the Supreme Court on November 26 began hearing a writ petition challenging the establishment of a new circuit bench of the Bombay High Court at Kolhapur. A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria is presiding over the matter filed by advocate Ranjeet Baburao Nimbalkar.

The petitioner challenges the August 1 notification, issued under Section 51(3) of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, on several grounds. The primary contentions are that the decision did not adequately consider the criteria laid out in the 1985 Jaswant Singh Commission Report—which stipulated that establishing benches away from the principal seat should be an exception, not the rule—and failed to follow the consultative process mandated by precedent.

The petitioner cited the Federation of Bar Associations. v. Union of India (2000) judgment, arguing it necessitates the Chief Justice to ascertain the opinion of other High Court judges before such a decision. The plea alleges a lack of transparency regarding this consultative process.

Appearing for the Bombay High Court, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta mounted a strong defense, beginning by challenging the petitioner's locus standi. He argued that a lawyer has no fundamental right to the location of a court bench.

"Petitioner is a lawyer and he has no fundamental right either to have seat or circuit bench at a particular place or not to have a seat or circuit bench at a particular place... Access to justice is a part of Article 21 and therefore, fundamental rights of litigants, resultantly the entire process under Section 51 [of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956] would be litigant-centric," SG Mehta submitted.

Mehta asserted that the decision was litigant-focused, aiming to bring "justice delivery at the doorstep," which he framed as an extension of Article 21. He presented affidavits from the Maharashtra Government and the Bombay High Court detailing "concrete reasons" and a history of representations and agitations from various sections of society demanding the bench. The affidavit outlined a procedural history where representations from the Kolhapur Action Committee were considered by administrative committees of the High Court, culminating in a report opining the need for the bench.

The SG concluded that the decision was based on necessary factors and that the absence of a full court reference could not be a ground to set aside the notification at the behest of an individual lawyer. The arguments are set to continue.

High Courts Must Not Exceed Article 227 Jurisdiction, SC Clarifies in Vakalatnama Ruling

In a significant ruling with direct implications for appellate practice and judicial restraint, the Supreme Court has clarified the procedural requirements for an advocate's withdrawal of appearance while also pointedly admonishing a High Court for overstepping its supervisory jurisdiction.

A bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi , in the case of Shri Digant v. M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors. , held that the requirement of a seven-day advance notice to a client before withdrawing a vakalatnama does not apply when an advocate merely files a "no instructions" pursis without formally seeking to withdraw the vakalatnama itself.

More critically, the bench found that the Bombay High Court had erred in interfering with a "well reasoned order of the appellate Court" under Article 227 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court reiterated the established principle that this power is to be used sparingly, not for correcting mere errors, but only in cases of grave injustice or when a subordinate court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction.

“The High Court clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution in interfering with a well reasoned order of the appellate Court,” the bench observed, emphasizing that the power is meant to keep subordinate courts "within the bounds of their authority."

The case involved a landlord-tenant dispute where the tenant's counsel filed a "no instructions" pursis. The High Court had set aside the eviction decree, finding a procedural violation. The Supreme Court, however, noted that the pursis did not seek withdrawal, nor was withdrawal permitted by the trial court, making the High Court's entire exercise "misconceived." This judgment serves as a stern reminder to High Courts about the circumscribed nature of their supervisory powers over lower court orders that are otherwise procedurally sound and jurisdictionally valid.

Electoral Roll Revision Process Under Scrutiny; Apex Court Notes Lack of Challenges in Bihar

The Supreme Court also heard extensive arguments on the legality of the Electoral Roll Special Intensive Revision (SIR) process, with petitioners led by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Prashant Bhushan arguing that the exercise is unconstitutional and places an undue burden on electors.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi is hearing the petitions filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms and others. Sibal contended that requiring citizens to fill enumeration forms to prove their eligibility effectively reverses the onus from the Election Commission to the individual, risking the wrongful deletion of millions, particularly illiterate and rural voters.

During the hearing, the bench made a notable observation regarding Bihar, where widespread apprehensions of mass exclusions had previously been raised. The CJI recalled the Court's intervention, which involved deploying paralegal volunteers to assist voters.

"We experienced a strange thing in Bihar. We kept on directing, sent our paralegal volunteers...nobody came forward to say I have been excluded,” the CJI observed.

This, the bench surmised, suggested that the deletions in Bihar—done on grounds of death, migration, and duplication—were largely correct. While the court is examining the broader legal questions and not a state-specific issue, this observation featured prominently in the dialogue.

The petitioners maintain that their challenge is not to the Election Commission's power under Section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, but to the reasonableness and constitutionality of the SIR method. The matter is scheduled for further hearing.

Bombay HC Curbs Police Powers: Freezing Bank Accounts is 'Attachment', Requires Magistrate's Nod Under BNSS

In a ruling that delineates the powers of investigating agencies under the new criminal laws, the Bombay High Court has held that police cannot debit-freeze bank accounts under Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

A division bench of Justice Anil L. Pansare and Justice Raj D. Wakode , hearing petitions in cyber-fraud cases, clarified that Section 106 (akin to the old Section 102 CrPC) only permits the seizure of property for evidentiary purposes. Freezing an account, the court held, amounts to an "attachment," which can only be done through the procedure laid down in Section 107 of the BNSS, requiring an order from a Magistrate.

The court relied significantly on the Kerala High Court's ruling in Headstar Global Pvt. Limited v. State of Kerala & Ors. , which established this distinction. The Bombay High Court reiterated that to attach any property believed to be proceeds of crime, the investigating officer must approach the jurisdictional Magistrate.

This judgment provides crucial protection against the arbitrary freezing of bank accounts by police during investigations and reinforces the principle of judicial oversight in actions that have severe financial consequences for individuals and businesses. The High Court quashed all debit-freezing orders issued under Section 106 in the petitions before it, directing that any such action must strictly adhere to the mandate of Section 107.

Upholding Constitutional Values: Justice Vikram Nath on Constitution Day

These legal developments unfolded as the nation observed Constitution Day on November 26. At a ceremony in the Supreme Court, Justice Vikram Nath delivered a poignant welcome address, reminding the legal fraternity and the nation that the day is not merely ceremonial.

"Constitution Day is therefore not a ritual. It is a reaffirmation of the shared values that bind us: the dignity of the individual, the unity of the nation, and the hope that democratic institutions will continually evolve for the better," he stated.

Describing the Constitution as both a "compass and anchor," Justice Nath emphasized its role in nurturing pluralism and protecting the weakest, while adapting to new generations. His words served as a timely reminder of the foundational principles that guide the judiciary as it navigates the complex legal and social questions of our time.