'Utterly Ridiculous' 'Devoid Of Common Sense': Madras High Court Directs Registry To Not Delve Into Judicial Acts By Separating Connected Pleas

The Madras High Court on Friday frowned upon its own Registry for attempting to exercise judicial powers which they do not possess by segregating connected cases and listing one set of those cases before a Division Bench and the other before a single Bench.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D Audikesavalu remarked that a training programme must be conducted for the Registry at the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy and accordingly observed,

"The Registrar-General will ensure that the receiving personnel at the Registry are made aware of the elementary principles recorded herein and a training programme in such regard may be conducted at the judicial academy as expeditiously as possible so that such mistakes are not repeated"

The orders were passed when it was brought to the notice of the Court that a batch of writ petitions had been filed in the Court challenging the validity of Section 462 of the Companies Act, 2013 which empowers the Central government to issue notifications stipulating that certain provisions of the Act will not be applicable to a class or classes of companies. The petitioners had also challenged the validity of the notification of the Centre dated June 13, 2017 in exercise of its powers under Section 462 of the Act and also a few connected orders issued by the Centre under Sections 230 and 232 of the Act.

Consequently, the Registry had advised the petitioners to segregate the connected pleas and accordingly listed the challenge to Section 462 and the June 12, 2017 notification before a Division Bench and the challenge to other orders of the Centre before a single Bench.

Terming such exercise of discretion as 'utterly ridiculous and completely devoid of any element of sense', the Court explained that when challenges are made to the validity of a statute or a rule, there must be a context in which the challenge is made. A statutory provision or a rule may not be challenged in vacuum without there being a consequence thereto, the Court added.

"Ordinarily, it would involve the challenge to an order or the applicability of a rule or any notice issued in such regard which prompts the challenge to the rule or the statutory provision which enables the order or notice to be made.. Courts do not take up provisions of statute and academically decide on the validity thereof without first ascertaining the relevance of such decision in the context of the lis", the Court observed. By advocating for the separation of such connected pleas, the Court found that this context was lost.

Further, reprimanding the Registry for insisting upon such segregation, the Court observed,

"The Registry should restrain itself and not delve into judicial acts or require the ridiculous separation of the immediate challenge from the challenge to the validity of any statutory provision or rule"

The Court went on to observed that there were also many instances in the High Court wherein the main matter was disposed of but the legal issue involved had been referred to a larger Bench. Opining this to be 'equally fallacious', the Court emphasised,

"The answer to the reference cannot be applied to any matter and no reference may be taken up for any academic purpose"

The Court further mentioned instances wherein adjudicating authorities and even arbitrators and arbitral tribunals were 'needlessly impleaded' even though there had been no attack on such parties in the petitions except to the orders or awards passed by the adjudicating bodies or arbitrators.

"Unless allegations are levelled against the adjudicating authority qua the conduct of the adjudication or against an arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal on grounds of personal misconduct, adjudicating authorities and arbitrators or arbitral tribunals are utterly unnecessary - and imminently avoidable - parties whose names ought to be struck off at the receiving stage of the petitions unless it is indicated that personal allegations have been levelled against them", the order read.

Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to ensure that the segregated petitions appear together so that it appears as a composite petition before the concerned Division Bench.

The Central government was given 3 weeks time to file counter affidavits in the matter. Matter is slated to be heard next on September 17 at 2:15pm.

Case Title: Sharpoorji Pallonji and Company v. Union of India 

Click Here To Read/Download Order