The division judge bench of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Dubey Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another held that the powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are meant for taking care of situations where the High Court feels that some direction(s)/order(s) are required in the interest of justice.
Brief facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was registered against the accused under Sections 376 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3(1)(W)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was submitted to the superintendent of police and the same was forwarded to the Appellant with a note that DNA examination as per guidelines be undertaken.
Thereafter, the accused filed a bail application before the High Court. During the proceedings, the High Court asked for the case diary, however, the FSL report was not there. Furthermore, the Court seeks the personal appearance of the superintendent of police, and the superintendent of police apprised the court that the same was submitted to the Appellant. The Appellant denied and stated that the concerned sub-inspector didn’t bring the same to his notice. This leads to the order for dereliction of duty, insubordination, and causing undue disruption in the proceedings of the High Court passed against the Appellant by the High Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the order for conducting a departmental inquiry against the Appellant can’t be sustained as the accused had only filed the bail application before the High Court.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied upon the judgments titled Sangitaben Shaileshbhai Datanta v State of Gujarat, and State Represented by Inspector of Police v M Murugesan.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the Appellant showed insubordination, incompetence, and, dereliction of duty and therefore, was liable to be proceeded against. It was further contended that the departmental actions against the appellant were subject to an interim stay, therefore the case could not be resolved logically.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the High Court is a Constitutional Court with a broad range of power. In accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court possesses original, appellate, and suo moto jurisdiction. When the High Court determines that a direction or order is necessary in the interest of justice, it may use the authority granted by Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to handle the matter.
It was furthermore observed that the High Court's proper course of action should have been to limit itself to accepting or rejecting the accused's request for bail under Section 439 of the Code. However, the High Court could not have closed its eyes after concluding that there had been serious errors made by the investigative and police machinery that could have had fatal effects on the delivery of justice.
It was noted that the learned Single Bench, after establishing reasons and grounds for consideration, might have ordered the initiation of separate proceedings by using Article 226 of the Constitution. Following that, the issue should have been sent to the learned Chief Justice of the High Court for placement before a proper Bench, which would proceed in line with the law, of course, after providing the person or people being prosecuted with a fair opportunity to respond.
It was furthermore noted that the Superintendent of Police, the officer above the appellant, had made a statement that he would take action against the appellant and had started an investigation to see if a substantial punishment should be imposed. The statement was made on his own initiative and was not in response to any instruction from the court. As a result, there was no reason for the High Court to continue to watch for action to be taken against the appellant as the Superintendent of Police had already decided to start an investigation concerning the appellant in order to impose a severe punishment.
Based on these considerations, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that the High Court’s direction doesn’t cause any prejudice to the departmental proceedings and hence, the judgment passed by the High Court doesn’t require any interference.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Sanjay Dubey Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Another
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishna Murari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1466 of 2023 [SLP (Crl.) No. 11377 of 2022]
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 467 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Awanish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. S.k. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Chandrashekhar A.chakalabbi, Adv. Mr. Anshul Rai, Adv. For M/S. Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, AOR
Advocates for the Respondent: Mrinal Gopal Elker, AOR
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
