1979 (1) TMI 236 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules.
2. Constitutional interpretation of Article 134(1) and Article 134(2) of the Indian Constitution.
3. Application and scope of Article 145(1)(b) and Article 145(1)(d) of the Indian Constitution.
4. Procedural fairness under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
5. Validity of Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules:
The primary issue was the constitutional validity of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules, which allows for the summary dismissal of certain appeals. The appellant argued that this rule was ultra vires as it permitted the Supreme Court to dismiss appeals ex parte without a full-fledged hearing, which they claimed was contrary to the constitutional mandate provided under Article 134 of the Indian Constitution. The court examined whether the rule infringed upon the substantive right of appeal and whether it was consistent with the procedural fairness required by law.

2. Constitutional Interpretation of Article 134(1) and Article 134(2):
Article 134(1) provides an absolute right of appeal to the Supreme Court in specific cases, such as where a death sentence is imposed for the first time or in reversal of an acquittal. Article 134(2) allows Parliament to confer additional appellate powers on the Supreme Court. The court held that appeals under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) are of such grave importance that they necessitate a full hearing, including notice to the State and examination of the entire record, to ensure that the right to life and liberty is not compromised.

3. Application and Scope of Article 145(1)(b) and Article 145(1)(d):
Article 145(1)(b) empowers the Supreme Court to frame rules regarding the procedure for hearing appeals, while Article 145(1)(d) specifically deals with rules for the entertainment of appeals under Article 134(1)(c). The court interpreted these provisions to mean that procedural rules should not infringe upon the substantive right of appeal. The court upheld the rule but restricted its application to ensure it did not violate the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing.

4. Procedural Fairness under Article 21:
The court emphasized that any procedure established by law must be fair, just, and reasonable, as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution. The court held that summary dismissal of appeals involving death or life sentences without a full hearing would be arbitrary and unfair, thus violating Article 21. The court insisted on a comprehensive hearing process, including notice to the State and examination of records, to uphold the principles of natural justice.

5. Validity of Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
Section 384 allows appellate courts to dismiss appeals summarily. The court found that while this provision is generally valid, its application must be restricted in cases involving severe penalties like death or life imprisonment. The court read down Section 384 to ensure it aligns with constitutional principles, requiring a full hearing in such grave cases.

Conclusion:
The majority judgment upheld the vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules and Section 384 of the Criminal Procedure Code but imposed significant restrictions on their application. The court mandated that in cases involving death or life sentences, a full hearing with notice to the State and examination of the entire record is necessary to comply with constitutional requirements. This ensures procedural fairness and protects the right to life and liberty as enshrined in the Constitution. The dissenting opinion argued that the rule is within the Supreme Court's rule-making power and does not violate any statutory or constitutional provisions. The court directed that notice be issued to the respondent in the appeal.