2011 (10) TMI 526 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether directions 1 to 15 in Madhuri Patil are impermissible, being legislative in nature? Whether directions 11 and 12 in Madhuri Patil, which exclude the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits challenging the decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committees, violate section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Whether direction 13 in Madhuri Patil barring intra-court appeals against decisions of Single Judges in writ petitions, when such appeals are specifically provided for in State enactments/Letters Patents, is valid and proper? Held that - Appeal allowed. The second sentence of clause 13 providing that where the writ petition is disposed of by a single judge, no further appeal would lie against the order of the division bench (even when there is a vested right to file such intra-court appeal) and will only be subject to a special leave under Article 136, is not legally proper and therefore, to that extent, is held to be not a good law. The second sentence of direction No.(13) stands overruled. As a consequence, wherever the writ petitions against the orders of the scrutiny committee are heard by a single judge and the state law or Letters Patent permits an intra-court appeal, the same will be available.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and validity of directions in Madhuri Patil case.
2. Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction by directions in Madhuri Patil.
3. Validity of direction barring intra-court appeals against decisions of Single Judges in writ petitions.

Analysis:

Re: Legality and Validity of Directions in Madhuri Patil (Directions 1 to 15)

The Supreme Court examined whether the fifteen directions issued in Madhuri Patil were legislative in nature and thus impermissible. The Court noted its constitutional duty to protect fundamental rights and stepped in to fill legislative vacuums by issuing guidelines to enforce socio-economic rights. Citing precedents like S.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, the Court emphasized that judicial activism is justified to protect fundamental rights in the absence of legislation. The Court concluded that the directions in Madhuri Patil were valid and necessary to ensure that only genuine scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates benefit from reservations, thus preventing misuse by ineligible candidates.

Re: Exclusion of Civil Court Jurisdiction

The Court addressed whether directions 11 and 12 in Madhuri Patil, which bar civil court jurisdiction over decisions of the Caste Scrutiny Committees, violate Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was clarified that civil court jurisdiction can be excluded only by statute. However, since the scrutiny committees were created by judicial order and not by statute, the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction was deemed appropriate. The Court explained that the scrutiny committees are administrative bodies, not judicial or quasi-judicial entities, and their decisions can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution. This mechanism ensures expeditious and efficacious resolution of disputes regarding caste certificates, aligning with the objective of preventing false claims.

Re: Validity of Direction Barring Intra-Court Appeals

The Court examined direction 13 in Madhuri Patil, which barred intra-court appeals against decisions of Single Judges in writ petitions. It was noted that the right to appeal is a substantive right, vested in a litigant by statute, and can only be taken away by express legislation or necessary implication. The Court held that the direction in Madhuri Patil, which barred intra-court appeals, was not legally proper as it conflicted with statutory provisions allowing such appeals. Consequently, the second sentence of direction 13 was overruled, affirming that where state law or Letters Patent permits an intra-court appeal, it should be available.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No.3467/2005, setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court that held the writ appeal as not maintainable. The writ appeal was restored to the file of the High Court for expeditious disposal on merits. Civil Appeal No.3468/2005 was dismissed as infructuous in light of the order in CA No.3467/2005. The Court appreciated the assistance rendered by Mr. Gopal Subramanian as Amicus Curiae.