Judicial Decision Does Not Infringe Fundamental Rights : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently reiterated the principle that a judicial decision cannot be challenged as infringing fundamental rights.

The Court noted that it has been laid down in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra that "a judicial decision rendered by a Judge of competent jurisdiction in or in relation to a matter brought before him does not infringe a Fundamental Right."

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih made this observation while refusing to direct a High Court to expeditiously decide a criminal appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution aggrieved by the delay in the hearing of his criminal appeal in the High Court.

The Court observed that a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was not maintainable against the High Court's order regarding the listing of the case.

"If priority has not been given to the petitioner's criminal appeal (albeit filed in 2016) by the High Court for early hearing, for whatever reason, the same is also part of the judicial process and cannot be made amenable to a challenge in a writ petition under Article 32 citing breach of Article 21," the Court observed.

The petitioner, if he wishes to be released on bail pending the criminal appeal, cannot invoke the writ remedy but has to take recourse to an application under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court stated.

The Court dismissed the writ petition as "misconceived."

Supreme Court has no power of superintendence over High Courts

Dismissing the writ petition, the Supreme Court observed :

"There is no provision in Chapter-IV (titled The Union Judiciary) under Part-V (The Union) of the Constitution of India which, in terms similar to Article 227 of the Constitution (Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court) under Chapter-V thereof, confers power of superintendence on the Supreme Court over the High Courts."

The Court referred to the precedent in Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1 which held that in our constitutional scheme there is a clear division of jurisdiction between the two institutions (Supreme Court and High Courts) and both the institutions need to have mutual respect for each other.

"Accepting the prayer of the petitioner and issuing any direction, as prayed, would amount to inappropriate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction showing disrespect to another constitutional court; hence, no such direction, as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued," the Court observed.

The Court said that at best, even assuming that the petition under Article 32 is maintainable, it can only request the High Court.

Case Title : Ganpat @ Ganapat v. State of Uttar Pradesh