Judicial balance must be sustained: Supreme Court

The practice of some of the High Courts passing ad interim orders to the police in cases under Section 482 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that they should not arrest the accused pending a decision on quash petition has been decried by the apex court in its judgment dated January 6.

In the Criminal Appeal No.1144 of 2016 between the State of Telangana and Habib Abdullah Jeelani & Others, Justice Dipak Misra, speaking for himself and Justice Amitava Roy, came down heavily on the High Court and said :

“...the types of orders like the present one, are totally unsustainaable, for it is contrary to the .. settled principles and judicial precedents. It is intellectual truancy to avoid the precedents and issue directions which are not in consonance with law,” the bench opined and added, “It is the duty of a judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication.

It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind.”

Dealing with the matrix of the case the court said that “the facts lie in a narrow compass.” On the basis of a report by the informant under Section 154 Cr.P.C, FIR No.205/2014 dated July 27,2014 was registered at Chandrayangutta police station, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 of the IPC.

Challenging the initiation of criminal action, the three accused invoked inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in criminal petition No. 10012 of 2014 for quashing of the FIR and consequential investigation.

The single judge referred to the FIR and took note of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners therein that all the allegations made in the FIR were false and the petitioners had been falsely implicated and thereafter expressed his disinclination to interfere on the ground that it was not appropriate to stay the investigation of the case.

However, as a submission had been raised that the accused persons were innocent and there had been allegation of false implication, it would be appropriate to direct the police not to arrest the petitioners during the pendency of the investigation and, accordingly, it was so directed.

The Supreme Court after hearing the counsels from both the sides and referring to as many as 30 case laws on the subject allowed the appeal.

Professor convicted
In a case involving a college teacher, the Sessions court at Palanpur (Gujarat) has convicted one Kanubhai Patel of the offence of sexual harassment and awarded three years imprisonment plus a fine of Rs.1,700.

The incident took place in the year 2006 when the accused professor sexually harassed his woman colleague during a trip to Maharashtra and Goa.

Hope, this conviction would deter the teachers and other professionals like doctors, actors and lawyers who often have more interaction with women from taking inappropriate liberty with them.

Contemptuous utterances
A case for the issuance of contempt notice has been perfectly made out by a senior lawyer of the Supreme Court while expressing his views in the media soon after the pronouncement of verdict in the infamous Sahara-Birla diaries case by the apex court on January 11.

The lawyer, Prashant Bhushan, well known for his tantrums on socio-politico issues who represented a petitioner in the case, levelled a scathing attack on the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular and said that the court was adopting double standards in matters where VIPs were involved.

Thus, he directly accused the court of being discriminatory or biased. In the case on hand, the allegations of corruption were made against the Prime Minister and some of the Chief Ministers.

Rejecting the plea of the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) the Supreme Court said that no investigation can be ordered merely on the basis of some entries in a diary without sufficient evidence.

Now it remains to be seen if the apex court would adopt the same approach as it had in the recent past in a case involving former judge of the Supreme Court, Justice Markandeya Katju on whom a contempt notice was slammed or lets the new contemnor go scot-free for whatever reasons.

If the apex court adopts lenient approach and does not act against Prashant Bhushan, then inadvertently though, it would prove the allegations of discrimination and double standards levelled by him to be true.

As we have unequivocally stated time and again, the independence and sanctity of judiciary must be maintained.

In recent times, a well-orchestrated attempt has been made by some vested interests to deride, defame and belittle the judiciary. Indeed, this is a very serious matter and the nefarious trend needs to be nipped in the bud.

Kahani condom ki!
What is the relationship between condom and rape ? Indeed, this is an intriguing question, but it has a very close relationship.

Going by a recent judgment, probably the first of its kind in the world, delivered by a criminal court of Laussane in Switzerland, a man who deceptively removes the condom during the ‘act’ without letting the woman partner know about it, is guilty of committing the offence of rape.

Accordingly, the 47-year-man has been awarded a suspended sentence of one year imprisonment. The logic behind the verdict is simple: Had the woman known that her male partner was not using the condom, she would not have consented to sex. And forced sex is certainly a rape.

Indian courts should be quick to follow the Swiss precedence. Because by doing so, population control, control of VD and AIDS and incidents of legal and illegal abortions can be effectively checked.