Skip to content


R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay (3) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case Number Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and 3 of 1983
Judge
Reported in(1984)86BOMLR651
AppellantR.S. Nayak
RespondentA.R. Antulay (3)
Excerpt:
.....14, 21 - criminal law amendment act (xlvi of 1952), section 7--supreme court directing transfer of special cases to high court- high court - whether can go into question that supreme court's order directing transfer is wrong on merits or law.;in view of the clear provisions o£ articles 141 and 144 of the constitution of india, it will be entirely wrong and remiss for the high court to go into the question whether the supreme court's order directing the transfer of the special cases to the high court is wrong on merits or law. the high court has absolutely no business to go behind the order of the supreme court and its only bounden duty is to see that the orders of the supreme court are carried out in effect.;ram jethmalani with p.r. vakil and mahesh jethmalant and arun bathe for the..........1984 86 bom. l.r.404this appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. the order and decision of the learned special judge shri r.b. sule dated july 25, 1983 discharging the accused in special case no. 24 of 1982 and special case no. 3 of 1983 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed further from the stage where the accused was discharged.the accused was the chief minister of a premier state - the state of maharashtra. by a prosecution launched as early as on september 11, 1981, his character and integrity came under a cloud. nearly 21 years have rolled by and the case has not moved an inch further. an expeditious trial is primarily in the interest of the accused and a mandate of article 21. expeditious disposal of a criminal case is in the interest of both, the prosecution and the.....
Judgment:

Khatri, J.

1. While disposing of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1983 and Transferred Cases Nos. 347 and 348 of 1983, the Supreme Court passed the following operative order on February 1984 86 Bom. L.R.404

This appeal accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order and decision of the learned Special Judge Shri R.B. Sule dated July 25, 1983 discharging the accused in Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983 is hereby set aside and the trial shall proceed further from the stage where the accused was discharged.

The accused was the Chief Minister of a premier State - the State of Maharashtra. By a prosecution launched as early as on September 11, 1981, his character and integrity came under a cloud. Nearly 21 years have rolled by and the case has not moved an inch further. An expeditious trial is primarily in the interest of the accused and a mandate of Article 21. Expeditious disposal of a criminal case is in the interest of both, the prosecution and the accused. Therefore, Special Case No. 24 of 1982 and Special Case No. 3 of 1983 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Greater Bombay, Shri R, B. Sule are withdrawn and transferred to the High Court of Bombay with a request to the learned Chief Justice to assign these two cases to a sitting Judge of the High Court. On being so assigned, the learned Judge may proceed to expeditiously dispose of the cases preferably by holding the trial from, day to day.

2. Pursuant to the above directions of the Supreme Court, My Lord the Chief Justice assigned these two Special Cases to me by an order dated March 1, 1984. The accused and the two complainants appeared before me yesterday (i.e. on March 12, 1984). The accused was represented by advocates before the learned Special Judge. However, yesterday he told this Court that he would not be engaging any advocates 'at least for the present'. He orally raised an objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the two Special Cases. ' I had suggested to the accused to put his objection in the form of an application. However, he declined the option and stated that he would like to argue the question orally without putting in any written application.

3. The accused argued the question of jurisdiction to try the two Special Cases for about two hours yesterday and again for other two hours today. I find that the gravamen of his attack is that the Supreme Court's order transferring the two Special Cases to the High Court is wrong on merits. As I felt that such a stand was not open to any party, I asked the accused as well as the learned advocates of the two complainants to address the Court on this particular aspect, I have heard them and I find that in view of the clear provisions of Article 141 and 144 of the Constitution, it will be entirely wrong and remiss for this Court to go into the question whether the Supreme Court's order directing the transfer of the two cases to this Court is right or wrong on merits. Article 141 ordains that the law declared by Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India. Article 144 further provides that all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. The accused submits that he is not challenging the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to pass the orders in appeals, disposing of them. According to him he is challenging only the last paragraph of the order, whereby the two cases stand transferred to this Court, as being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. I am clear that this Court has absolutely no business to go behind the order of the Supreme Court and its only bounden duty is to see that the orders of the Supreme Court are carried out in effect. If the accused has any grievance to make, his proper remedy would be to move the Supreme Court for review of its judgment or for seeking any further directions or clarifications as may be expedient.

4. In view of what is stated above, I direct that the accused should not address any submissions to the Court, propounding that the order of the Supreme Court is wrong on merits or in law.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //