9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Constitutionality of a private citizen invoking Article 136 for leave to appeal against an acquittal. 2. Interrelation between Article 136 and Article 21. 3. Locus standi of a public-spirited citizen in criminal appeals. 4. Procedural fairness under Article 21 in the context of Article 136. 5. Scope and discretionary power of the Supreme Court under Article 136. 6. Judicial discretion and procedural limitations in granting special leave. 7. Public interest and private vendetta in criminal appeals. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis 1. Constitutionality of a Private Citizen Invoking Article 136 The primary issue is whether it is constitutionally valid for a private citizen, who has a loose nexus with the victim, to invoke Article 136 of the Constitution for leave to appeal against an acquittal. The petitioner argued that such leave and subsequent proceedings were unconstitutional as they violated Article 21, which protects life and liberty. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the brother of the deceased or any high-minded citizen is not an "officious meddler" when seeking justice for a grievous crime. 2. Interrelation Between Article 136 and Article 21 The Court examined whether Article 136, which allows the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal, conflicts with Article 21's requirement for "procedure established by law." The Court concluded that Article 136 inherently includes a fair procedure, thereby satisfying Article 21's mandate. The Court emphasized that Article 136 is a special jurisdiction with a built-in prescription of power and procedure. 3. Locus Standi of a Public-Spirited Citizen The Court addressed whether a public-spirited citizen, not being the complainant or first informant, has the locus standi to appeal against an acquittal. It was argued that the criminal justice system should allow for such appeals to ensure that justice is served. The Court acknowledged that while the State is typically the prosecutor, there are situations where private individuals should be allowed to appeal to prevent miscarriages of justice. 4. Procedural Fairness Under Article 21 The Court held that the procedural fairness required by Article 21 is inherently met by the procedures under Article 136. It stated that the Court exercises judicial discretion and follows established judicial principles when granting special leave, ensuring a fair process. 5. Scope and Discretionary Power of the Supreme Court Under Article 136 Article 136 grants the Supreme Court a wide discretionary power to interfere in suitable cases. The Court clarified that this power is not arbitrary but guided by judicial discretion. The Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is broad, allowing it to address injustices across various types of cases, including criminal matters. 6. Judicial Discretion and Procedural Limitations The Court emphasized that judicial discretion under Article 136 is not unfettered. It is exercised sparingly and guided by well-established principles. The Court noted that while it generally does not grant leave to non-parties, exceptions can be made in the interest of justice. 7. Public Interest and Private Vendetta in Criminal Appeals The Court highlighted the importance of ensuring that appeals under Article 136 are not driven by personal vendettas but serve the public interest. It stated that the Court would scrutinize the motives of those seeking to appeal and would only grant leave if it serves the public interest and the State has not acted due to extraneous reasons. Conclusion The Court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that Article 136's procedural and discretionary framework meets the requirements of Article 21. It held that private citizens could invoke Article 136 in the interest of justice, provided their motives align with public interest and not personal vendetta. The decision underscores the Court's role in ensuring justice while maintaining procedural fairness and judicial discretion.
|
