9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (4) TMI 575 - SC - Indian LawsCould not this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, have directed a communication being addressed to the High Court calling for information with the object of (I) ascertaining the facts, (ii) securing compliance with the direction contained in the order dated 28.10.2002? Whether the Division Bench of the High Court is justified - in law and on considerations of propriety - to make all those observations as have been extracted and reproduced hereinabove? Whether it is proper for the High Court to issue a direction to the Registrar General of Supreme Court of India to place its communication for consideration before a particular Bench of this Court?
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and authority of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Interim orders and their impact on construction activities. 3. The propriety of the Supreme Court seeking information from the High Court. 4. The relationship and hierarchy between the Supreme Court and High Courts. 5. The conduct and decorum expected between judicial institutions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction and Authority of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution: The High Court of Patna, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, was concerned with the public interest issues related to the drainage system, sewerage system, drinking water supply, and the condition of footpaths and roads. The High Court chose a specific road as a model habitat area to set an example for urban planning and issued orders in the nature of continuing mandamus to ensure compliance. 2. Interim Orders and Their Impact on Construction Activities: On 1.10.2001, the High Court issued interim orders to maintain street alignment, plan storm drains, and ensure footpaths run parallel to the road. This order effectively restrained all construction work within 110 feet from the center of Bailey Road, impacting several builders and developers. These builders, who were not parties to the original proceedings, filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking special leave to appeal against the High Court's order. 3. The Propriety of the Supreme Court Seeking Information from the High Court: The Supreme Court, on 28.10.2002, dismissed the builders' petitions, suggesting they approach the High Court to expedite the hearing of their grievances. Subsequently, the builders filed applications in the Supreme Court, stating their applications to vacate the interim order were not being heard by the High Court. The Supreme Court, on 3.11.2003, sought a response from the High Court to ascertain the facts and emphasize the need for an early hearing of the stay vacate applications. 4. The Relationship and Hierarchy between the Supreme Court and High Courts: The Supreme Court emphasized that under the constitutional scheme, both the Supreme Court and High Courts are courts of record, and the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court. However, in the context of appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court exercises a superior jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction inherently includes the power to issue corrective directions to the High Courts, and any failure to comply with such directions would undermine the hierarchical judicial system. 5. The Conduct and Decorum Expected Between Judicial Institutions: The High Court's reaction to the Supreme Court's request for information was seen as an overreaction. The High Court felt that it was being treated as a litigant and questioned the propriety of the Supreme Court's actions. The Supreme Court clarified that seeking information from the High Court was a procedural matter and did not undermine the High Court's status. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of mutual respect and collegiality between judicial institutions, highlighting that any derogatory remarks or misunderstandings should be avoided to maintain the dignity and decorum of the judiciary. Conclusion: The Supreme Court directed that the derogatory remarks made by the High Court in its order dated 3.12.2003 be expunged, emphasizing the need for maintaining the dignity and respect between the Supreme Court and High Courts. The Supreme Court hoped that such misunderstandings would be avoided in the future, ensuring a harmonious relationship between the two judicial institutions.
|
