New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday explained why it hears “small and routine matters”, two days after Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju questioned whether it should preside over “bail applications and frivolous PILs” given the large number of cases pending before it.
While delivering the judgement on a electricity equipmeny theft case Friday, a bench of Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice P.S. Narasimha said this case was a glaring example — “indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inhering in every citizen”.
It said if the court didn’t do this, “a serious miscarriage of justice… would be allowed to persist and the voice of a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention”.
The court further observed, “The history of this Court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this Court to protect the liberty of citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Part III of the Constitution.”
“The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less,” it added.
The comments came two days after Kiren Rijiju had told Rajya Sabha that a constitutional body like the Supreme Court should not be hearing “bail applications and frivolous PILs’’ at a time when pendency of cases was so high.
The comments were made while Rijiju introduced a Bill to rename the New Delhi International Arbitration Centre as the India International Arbitration Centre in the Upper House.
Rijiju pointed out that close to 70,000 cases were pending before the Supreme Court, and more than 4.25 crore cases were pending in the lower courts of the country.
He said, “We have to also ask the judiciary to ensure that the deserving people are given justice and those causing unnecessary burden are taken care of, so that they don’t cause disturbances while the court is functioning or the court is discharging its duties.”
What was the top court hearing Friday?
The Supreme Court’s comments came as a part of a judgement in an appeal filed by one Iqram, who had nine cases of theft of electricity equipment — belonging to the Electricity Department of Uttar Pradesh — filed against him.
Nine trials were conducted against him by a judge in Hapur. Iqram agreed to plea bargain and was handed a two-year sentence in each of the nine cases in November 2020. The trial court had also said the period of custody as an undertrial would be set off against the period of sentence.
While the jail authorities and the Allahabad High Court felt all his nine two-year sentences should run consecutively — that is one after the other, amounting to 18 years — the Supreme Court did not agree, and said these sentences should run concurrently or parallelly.
It allowed Iqram’s appeal and slashed his 18-year jail sentence to two years. This meant Iqram would walk free as he has already served three years in jail.
‘No benches till 1 January’
In Parliament, Rijiju had also spoken against court vacations. He was quoted as saying, “Definitely, there is a feeling among people of India that the long vacation which the courts obtain is not very convenient for justice-seekers. As the Law Minister, it is also my bounded obligation and duty to convey the message or sense of this House to the judiciary. Will definitely ensure that even if there are vacations, the functioning of the court should not be stopped.”
Following this, CJI Chandrachud announced Friday that no Supreme Court bench would be available from 17 December till 1 January during the ensuing winter vacations. The Supreme Court will reopen on 2 January.
Also read: SC directs UPSC, Bihar Govt to finalise Bihar DGP