2016 (11) TMI 1606 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of Excise licence to run country liquor shops - one eligibility conditions for grant of license is that licensee and his family members must possess good moral character and have no criminal background - It was alleged in the FIR that Vinod Kumar Tripathi and his wife Asha Tripathi, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively had committed fraud and forgery by opening bank account in the name of the Respondent No. 1 by affixing his photograph, submitting his ID and had withdrawn amount by forging his signature and deposited the security amount with District Excise Officer, Allahabad - Held that - It is expected that the High Courts while dealing with the lis are expected to focus on the process of adjudication and decide the matter. The concept, what is thought of or experienced cannot be ingrained or engrafted into an order solely because such a thought has struck the adjudicator. It must flow from the factual base and based on law. To elaborate, there cannot be general comments on the investigation or for that matter, issuance of host of directions for constituting separate specialized cadre managed by officials or to require an affidavit to be filed whether sanctioned strength of police is adequate or not to maintain law and order or involvement of judicial officers or directions in the like manner. To say the least, some of the directions issued are not permissible and all of them are totally unrelated to the case before the High Court - the High Court should have been well advised to restrict the adjudicatory process that pertained to the controversy that was before it. A Judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner. He ought not to wear a pair of spectacles so that he can see what he intends to see. There has to be a set of facts to express an opinion and that too, within the parameters of law. Some of the directions are in the sphere of policy. A court cannot take steps for framing a policy. As is evincible, the directions issued by the High Court and the queries made by it related to various spheres which, we are constrained to think, the High Court should not have gone into. It had a very limited lis before it. Be it stated, the directions may definitely show some anxiety on the part of the learned Judges, but it is to be remembered that directions are not issued solely out of concern. They have to be founded on certain legally justifiable principles that have roots in the laws of the country. Thus, the High Court has crossed the boundaries of the controversy that was before it. The courts are required to exercise the power of judicial review regard being had to the controversy before it. There may be a laudable object in the mind but it must flow from the facts before it or there has to be a specific litigation before it - In the maintenance of law and order situation the judicial officers are not to be involved. But the executive has to remain absolutely alive to its duties and we are sure, the State Government shall look into the aspects and endeavour to see that appropriate steps are taken to maintain the law and order situation. The impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside - appeal allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. High Court's jurisdiction in issuing directions beyond the scope of the case.
2. The adequacy and efficiency of police investigations.
3. The separation of investigation and prosecution from routine police duties.
4. The High Court's role in policy-making and legislative matters.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. High Court's Jurisdiction in Issuing Directions Beyond the Scope of the Case:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had traveled beyond the lis (dispute) to issue directions that it could not have. The case involved a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a mandamus to take action against certain parties for violating rules. However, the High Court issued broad directions concerning the entire police force and investigative procedures, which were not directly related to the case at hand. The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must focus on the specific controversy before them and not generalize or issue directions unrelated to the case.

2. The Adequacy and Efficiency of Police Investigations:
The High Court noted serious lapses in the investigation process, including the failure to verify the genuineness of signatures through a handwriting expert and the lack of thorough investigation by the police. The SSP, Allahabad, admitted that officers were overburdened and inadequately trained, leading to ineffective investigations. The Supreme Court acknowledged these observations but stressed that the High Court should have confined its directions to the specific case rather than issuing general comments on the state of police investigations.

3. The Separation of Investigation and Prosecution from Routine Police Duties:
The High Court directed the state to consider separating the work of investigation and prosecution from normal policing by creating a specialized cadre. It suggested that these officials should be well-trained and given appropriate status and perks. The Supreme Court found these directions to be in the domain of the legislature and beyond the High Court's jurisdiction. It reiterated that courts should not encroach upon legislative functions or policy-making.

4. The High Court's Role in Policy-Making and Legislative Matters:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the judiciary's role is to interpret and apply the law, not to legislate or create policies. It cited several precedents, including Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, and Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, to underline that judges must administer law according to legislative intent and should not impose their personal views or issue directions that require legislative action. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had overstepped its boundaries by issuing directions that fell within the legislative and executive domains.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order. It directed the High Court to dispose of the writ petition in accordance with the law, while cautioning the state to remain vigilant in its duties related to law and order and the efficiency of police investigations. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial restraint and adherence to the separation of powers among the judiciary, legislature, and executive.

← Previous Next →