The Supreme Court emphasized that High Court judges must respect the jurisdiction designated by the Chief Justice. They clarified that judges cannot change the classification of petitions they receive without the Chief Justice’s consent, especially if the modified petition falls outside their designated jurisdiction.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court upheld the authority of the Chief Justice of the High Court in assigning cases to individual judges and stressed the importance of judges operating within their designated jurisdictions.
Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra clarified that High Court judges cannot change the classification of petitions without the Chief Justice’s consent, particularly if the revised petition does not fall within their assigned jurisdiction.
Read Also: Supreme Court Scrutinizes BSF Jurisdiction Expansion in Punjab
This observation arose in a case where the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aimed at quashing a First Information Report (FIR) in a criminal matter. The High Court deemed the writ petition infructuous, as a chargesheet had already been filed and the trial court had acknowledged the charges by the time the petition was heard.
The petitioners’ counsel contended that the High Court could have adjusted the relief and reclassified the petition to fall under Article 227 (which grants the High Court supervisory jurisdiction over all courts in its area) to consider the matter on its merits, rather than simply dismissing the Article 226 petition as infructuous.
As observed in its judgment on October 15. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating,
“A Judge of a High Court assigned petitions under Article 226 for hearing and decision by its Chief Justice cannot, if he finds that the petition filed under Article 226 should have ideally been filed under Article 227, treat the petition as one under Article 227 and proceed to hear and decide it, unless the Chief Justice has also assigned to such Judge petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution for hearing and decision. If not so assigned, the learned Judge may, in his discretion, direct the petition to be treated as one under Article 227 for being placed before the learned Judge having assignment,”
Before the High Court, individuals charged under Sections 406, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR. The High Court determined that, since a charge sheet had been filed and a trial court had taken cognizance of the charges, the writ petition had become infructuous.
The accused then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, where their counsel, Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, argued that the High Court still had the discretion to quash the FIR.
However, the Supreme Court was not convinced that the High Court was obligated to exercise such discretion in all cases.
The Court stated,
“If during the pendency of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before a High Court where an FIR is challenged the investigation is completed and chargesheet filed, in pursuance whereof the competent criminal court takes cognizance of the offence, the court would be disabled in proceeding with the writ petition owing to a judicial order having intervened … If a judicial order passed by a civil court cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, a fortiori, a judicial order passed by a criminal court cannot also be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226.”
As an alternative argument, senior advocate Nagamuthu suggested that the High Court could have reclassified the Article 226 petition as either an Article 227 petition or one under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He argued that the specific nomenclature of the plea was irrelevant and that the High Court retained the authority to consider potential relief after changing the petition’s classification.
Read Also: Delhi HC: Expansion of ‘Civil Judge Jurisdiction’ in Delhi District Court
However, the Supreme Court referenced its ruling in State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand (1998) to emphasize that the nomenclature of a petition is significant. The Court asserted that a High Court judge cannot rule on a case unless the Chief Justice of the High Court has assigned the appropriate jurisdiction.
In this instance, the Supreme Court determined that there was no evidence suggesting that the High Court Bench had been given jurisdiction to hear Article 227 petitions. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal.
Advocates Samant Singh, Shreyas Kaushal, and Rajeev Singh also represented the accused.