9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 2058 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of Anticipatory bail application under SC/ST Act - High Court Registry rejected numbering of the petition and dismissed the Anticipatory Bail Petition on the issue of maintainability under SC/ST Act - HELD THAT - The nature of judicial function is well settled under our legal system. Judicial function is the duty to act judicially, which invests with that character. The distinguishing factor which separates administrative and judicial function is the duty and authority to act judicially. Judicial function may thus be defined as the process of considering the proposal, opposition and then arriving at a decision upon the same on consideration of facts and circumstances according to the Rules of reason and justice. The act of numbering a petition is purely administrative. The objections taken by the Madras High Court Registry on the aspect of maintainability requires judicial application of mind by utilizing appropriate judicial standard. Moreover, the wordings of Section 18A of the SC/ST Act itself indicates at application of judicial mind. In this context, the statement of the Attorney General is accepted, that the determination in this case is a judicial function and the High Court Registry could not have rejected the numbering. The High Court Registry could not have exercised such judicial power to answer the maintainability of the petition, when the same was in the realm of the Court. As the power of judicial function cannot be delegated to the Registry, the order cannot be sustained, rejecting the numbering/registration of the Petition, by the Madras High Court Registry. Accordingly, the Madras High Court Registry is directed to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Dismissal of anticipatory bail application by District Principal Judge and refusal to number the petition by High Court Registry. 2. Question of law regarding the maintainability of the Anticipatory Bail Petition under the SC/ST Act. 3. Judicial function of the High Court Registry in numbering petitions. 4. Interpretation of Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act and its application. Analysis: 1. The Special Leave Petition was filed against the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application by the District Principal Judge and the refusal of the High Court Registry to number the petition. The case involved an FIR against multiple co-accused under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act. The Petitioner sought anticipatory bail due to the apprehension of arrest. 2. The main issue raised was whether the High Court Registry was correct in not numbering the Anticipatory Bail Petition based on the maintainability under the SC/ST Act. The Petitioner questioned the judicial function of the High Court in dismissing the petition on this ground. 3. The Attorney General argued that the High Court Registry's refusal to number the petition was incorrect. He highlighted the 2018 amendment to the SC/ST Act, specifically Section 18-A, which mandated that an appropriate bench adjudicate such matters. The distinction between administrative and judicial functions was emphasized, stating that the act of numbering a petition involves administrative action, while the determination of maintainability requires judicial application. 4. The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, held that the High Court Registry exceeded its authority by questioning the maintainability of the petition, which falls within the realm of the Court's judicial function. The Court emphasized that judicial power cannot be delegated to the Registry and directed the Registry to number the petition and place it before an appropriate bench. The Court clarified that it did not express any views on the merits of the case or the nature of the amendment under Section 18-A of the SC/ST Act, leaving it for the appropriate Bench to consider. 5. In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the petition by directing the High Court Registry to number the petition and urged the High Court to consider the matter without influence from the observations made in the judgment. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the distinction between administrative and judicial functions in such matters.
|
