9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent must be necessarily and routinely put on notice upon the filing of an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Whether the Supreme Court has the power to summarily dismiss an appeal at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Necessity and Routine Notice to Respondent: The appellant contended that an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, should automatically result in a notice being issued to the respondent. The appellant argued that the appeal is a statutory first appeal and, therefore, should be admitted for hearing as of right, with the notice to the respondents issued as a matter of course. The appellant's counsel further submitted that the appeal should not have been listed before the Court for the purpose of hearing on admission and that the Registry itself should have issued the notice to the respondents. The Court, however, did not accept this argument. It emphasized that the relevant statutory provisions under the Act do not preclude the Court from exercising judicial discretion at the admission stage. The Court clarified that the appeal process under Section 116A should be in accordance with the procedure applicable to first appeals against any final order passed by a High Court in its original civil jurisdiction. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Supreme Court Rules also apply unless inconsistent with the Act. 2. Power to Summarily Dismiss an Appeal: The Court examined whether it has the power to summarily dismiss an appeal at the admission stage without issuing notice to the respondent. The Court referred to several precedents and statutory provisions to assert that such power is inherent in appellate jurisdiction. The Court cited cases like Umakant Vishnu Junanarkar v. Pramilabai and Anr., and S.P. Khanna v. S.N. Ghosh, which support the view that appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, possess the authority to summarily dismiss appeals if they are deemed worthless or devoid of merit. The Court noted that the discretion to summarily dismiss an appeal must be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily. It is expected that reasons for such dismissal are recorded, especially when the order is open to challenge before a superior forum. However, the Supreme Court, being the final Court, is not bound by this requirement since no appeal lies against its decisions. The Court also addressed the appellant's reliance on Rule 5A of Order XV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which lists certain types of appeals that should be put up for hearing ex-parte before the Court. The Court clarified that this rule is specific to appeals on certificates by High Courts and does not apply to all statutory appeals, including those under Section 116A of the Act. In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed its inherent power to summarily dismiss appeals at the admission stage, emphasizing that this power would be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the appeal does not raise any arguable question of fact or law. The Court rejected the appellant's submission and directed that the appeal be placed for preliminary hearing on admission.
|
