2017 (7) TMI 1088 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation and effect of paragraph 10 of the impugned order which provides that any request for stay or impeding the progress in the investigation or the trial of the coal block allocation cases can be made only to this Court and no other Court shall entertain any such request. Held that - While considering the interpretation of the expression a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned a failure of justice the International Court of Justice expressed the view that to constitute a failure of justice an error in procedure is fundamental when it is of the kind where the fundamental right of a staff member to present his case, either orally or in writing is denied. The International Court then proceeded to identify certain elements of the right to hearing well recognized as for instance the right to an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; the right to have the case heard and determined within a reasonable time; the right to a reasonable opportunity to present the case to the tribunal and to comment upon the opponent case; the right to equality in the proceedings vis- -vis the opponent; and the right to a reasoned decision. An allegation of failure of justice is a very strong allegation and use of an equally strong expression and cannot be equated with a miscarriage of justice or a violation of law or an irregularity in procedure it is much more. If the expression is to be understood as in common parlance, the result would be that seldom would a trial reach a conclusion since an irregularity could take place at any stage, inadmissible evidence could be erroneously admitted, an adjournment wrongly declined etc. To conclude, therefore, Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act must be given a very restricted interpretation and we cannot accept the over-broad interpretation canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants. The issue having already been agitated before this Court and negatived, we do not think it appropriate to revisit the order of 25th July, 2014 passed by this Court nor do we think it appropriate to modify that order.

Issues Involved:
1. Right to file a revision petition
2. Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
3. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
4. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution
5. Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution
6. Stay of proceedings
7. Interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Detailed Analysis:

Right to file a revision petition:
The appellants argued that paragraph 10 of the Supreme Court's order on July 25, 2014, effectively prevents them from exercising their right to file a revision petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The Court clarified that the revision jurisdiction of the High Court is discretionary and does not create a right for litigants. The Court emphasized that interlocutory orders are not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C., and this prohibition extends to Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants' entitlement to file a revision petition is taken away, but they can still approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution:
The appellants contended that their right to judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been violated. The Court acknowledged the vast jurisdiction under these Articles but emphasized that the Cr.P.C. is a complete code, and resort to constitutional provisions should be permissible only in extraordinary cases. The Court concluded that the appellants can approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 if necessary, thus not violating their constitutional rights.

Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that paragraph 10 of the order violates Article 14 by treating coal block allocation cases as a separate class. The Court held that these cases form a unique identifiable category due to their massive impact on public interest and large-scale illegalities. The classification is in public interest and does not violate Article 14.

Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution:
The appellants claimed that their right to life and liberty under Article 21 has been restricted. The Court rejected this contention, stating that no procedural safeguard has been denied, and the forum for seeking relief has merely shifted from the High Court to the Supreme Court. The Court emphasized that the magnitude of the illegalities in coal block allocation cases necessitates special attention.

Article 32 and Article 142 of the Constitution:
The appellants argued that paragraph 10 contravenes their fundamental right to access justice. The Court reiterated that while the power under Article 142 is wide, it cannot conflict with substantive law. The Court emphasized that the appellants' rights have not been curtailed but only the forum for exercising those rights has changed.

Stay of proceedings:
The appellants contended that the High Court has an inherent power to stay proceedings, which has been restricted by the Supreme Court's order. The Court clarified that the order does not monitor the trial but ensures its expeditious conclusion. The Court emphasized that the Prevention of Corruption Act mandates day-to-day trials and prohibits stays on any ground other than errors in sanction resulting in a failure of justice.

Interpretation of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The appellants argued that the prohibition against granting a stay of proceedings is not absolute. The Court disagreed, stating that a stay can only be granted if there is an error in the sanction resulting in a failure of justice. The Court emphasized that Parliament intended for trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act to be concluded expeditiously, and this intention must be respected.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the order of July 25, 2014, does not violate the appellants' rights and serves the larger public interest. The Court declined to revisit or modify the order, emphasizing the need for expeditious trials in cases involving large-scale corruption.

← Previous Next →