9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appeal against Gujarat High Court judgment. 2. Challenge to directions in Criminal Appeal No. 602/1997. 3. Contempt proceedings and jurisdictional issues. 4. Criticism of judgment language and judicial approach. 5. Decision on expunging certain portions from the judgment. 6. High Court's judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 601/1997. 7. Declarations and directions in the judgment under appeal. 8. Lack of notice to Advocate-General and violation of natural justice. 9. Doctrine of forum convenience and expeditious disposal. 10. Strong language and violation of natural justice. 11. Decision to set aside the order under challenge. 12. Referral to Central Vigilance Commission for further action. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Gujarat High Court judgment, focusing on Criminal Appeal No. 602/1997's directions. The Additional Solicitor General argued against certain unwarranted directions, emphasizing the importance of not denigrating the judiciary with harsh procedures. The Court acknowledged the criticism and expunged the harsh portion from the judgment, while upholding the rest of the High Court's findings. 2. The Court also addressed Criminal Appeal No. 601/1997, criticizing the High Court's strong language and lack of concurrence with certain aspects of the judgment. Declarations were made regarding the conflict with statutory provisions and the need for appropriate actions against officers involved in illegal withdrawals. The Court set aside the judgment under challenge and referred the matter to the Central Vigilance Commission for further action within a specified timeframe. 3. Concerns were raised about contempt proceedings and jurisdictional issues, emphasizing the need for proper procedures and the use of temperate language in judicial approaches. The Court highlighted the importance of restraint and criticized the High Court's language in the judgment. The violation of natural justice due to lack of notice and explanation was also noted, leading to the decision to set aside the order under challenge. 4. The judgment delved into the doctrine of forum convenience and expeditious disposal, cautioning against unnecessary delays in judicial proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for propriety in handling cases involving influential public servants and the importance of using temperate language in judicial pronouncements. The violation of natural justice principles due to lack of opportunity for parties to present their case was also a significant factor in the decision-making process.
|
