JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AFFECTING ORIGINAL SCOPE OF DUTIES? An analysis based on Article 138 of the Constitution :
My Quote: We must consider a person whose money and land is blocked in litigation dies everyday. Article 138. Enlargement of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (1) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction and powers with respect to any of the matters in the Union List as Parliament may by law confer (2) The Supreme Court shall have such further jurisdiction, and powers with respect to any matter as the Government of India and the Government of any State may by special agreement confer, if Parliament by law provides for the exercise of such jurisdiction and powers by the Supreme Court Poetic Justice: English drama critic Thomas Rymer coined the phrase in The Tragedies of the Last Age Consider’d (1678) to describe how a work should inspire proper moral behavior in its audience by illustrating the triumph of good over evil. The demand for poetic justice is consistent in Classical authorities and shows up in Horace, Plutarch, and Quintillian, so Rymer’s phrasing is a reflection of a commonplace. Philip Sidney, in The Defence of Poesy (1595) argued that poetic justice was, in fact, the reason that fiction should be allowed in a civilized nation. But Indian Civilization believes in Karma which was much much prior to theory of poetic justice: And here they say that a person consists of desires, and as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. : Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 7th century BCE Judicial Activism: During #pandemic #Covid19India Judiciary played active role. As such over last 15 years there is more judicial activism. When we change or expand horizon we need more efficiency, professionalism, workforce, intellect, reduction in procedure and process, and also with today’s time we need modern technology. We have in last decade seen Judiciary calling #AirChiefMarshal for questioning on #Rafaeldeal We saw courts ordering change in 1000 years custom and usage in case of #shabarimala At the same time #NJAC was struck down. There is Judicial activism seen by way of PILs and suo motu cognizance. However the fundament duty of Judiciary has seen serious backlog. May it be suit, appeal or execution. We cannot value the total amount stuck in financial recovery cases, and land cases pending in various courts across India. Common citizens discuss but do not debate because of scare of law. I am referring these sequences of events because recently Bombay High Court said if people die of lack of oxygen it’s violative of Article 21. What does it provide? Article 21 in The Constitution of India 1949 gives Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Backlog of Cases violate of Constitutional Rights? there is report which requires serious considerations even by those who are executing duties under oath. https://prsindia.org/policy/vital-stats/pendency-cases-judiciary which says: In 2016, compared to 2006, number of cases disposed of increased approximately from 57,000 to 76,000 in Supreme Court; from 14.4 lakh cases to 16 lakh cases in High Courts and from […]Read more
Statement under S/164 of Cr.P.C, Eye witness and Medical Opinion when accepted and rejected? Is Homicide case maintainable despite contradiction with circumstantial evidence?
In Sushant -Disha murder case this question has arisen. Lets see first provision of Section 164 of Cr.PC Section 164 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 164. Recording of confessions and statements. (1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial: Provided that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force. (2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily. (3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody. (4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:-” I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him. (Signed) A. B. Magistrate”. (5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub- section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded. (6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried. Confession: In Narayanaswami v. Emperor (1939) 66 I.A. 66, it was observed that, It is a well accepted rule regarding the use of confessions and admissions that these must either be accepted as a whole or rejected as a whole and that the court is not competent to accept only the inculpatory part while rejecting the exculpatory part as inherently incredible. Emperor v. Balmukand (1930) I.L.R. 52 All. 1011, followed Palvinder Kaur vs The State of Punjab […]Read more
Suicide – Power of State and Center to transfer matter to CBI – Obligations of Courts to protect Fundamental Rights
With alleged Suicide by Sushant Singh Rajput many discussions and debates and view point is expressed by media and other platforms on Power of Central Government to transfer the case to CBI when State Police fails to investigate collect evidence for free and fair trial in the matter. Let us discuss various aspects of this issue in its legal conspectus. Role and Rights of Accused in investigation Union of India and Anr. v. W.N Chadha (1993) Supp. 4 SCC 260, is a judgment which states that the accused has no right to participate in the investigation till process is issued to him, provided there is strict compliance of the requirements of fair investigation Likewise, the judgments in Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalongappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736, Prabha Mathur and Anr. v. Pramod Aggarwal & Ors., (2008) 9 SCC 469, Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 6 SCC 65 and Dinubhai Bhogabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2014) 4 SCC 626, which state that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation, has very little to do with the precise question before us. All these judgments are, therefore, distinguishable. Duty of Police to file F.I.R In Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh,the question before the Supreme Court was whether a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR) upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence under section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or the police officer has the power to conduct a preliminary inquiry in order to test the veracity of such information before registering the same. It was held that: i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes […]Read more