It has to be said right at the outset that in a remarkable and laudable judgment with far reaching consequences, the Delhi High Court in Harsh Mander & Anr v UOI & Ors in W.P.(C) 10498/2009 & CM Appl. 1837/2010 on August 8, 2018 decriminalised begging, striking down as “unconstitutional” the provisions which made it an offence. How can any law on earth punish a poor and hapless person who due to some reason is unable to earn as for instance those who lose their hands and legs and are not literate and are compelled to resort to begging due to no other option being left before them? This precisely is the reason why Delhi High Court too struck the right chord and struck down the provisions in a law that criminalises begging! I have really just no words and am falling short of words to express my utmost and unadulterated appreciation for this landmark judgment which must be read by all those who are literate and it must be emulated by all courts in all parts of the world and not just in India alone!

                                             To be sure, the Delhi High Court Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar who delivered this landmark judgment begins at the very beginning by first and foremost quoting from an article in The Guardian which says that, “…A society that sees legislating inequality and homelessness into invisibility has unquestionably lost its way…” Going forward, the Bench clearly held that, “The inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down.” Very rightly said! There can be no denying it!

                          It must be revealed here that this landmark judgment came on a petition filed by activists including Harsh Mander, who was represented by senior Supreme Court advocate Colin Gonsalves. It said the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act which treats begging as an offence cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny.

                                        Interestingly enough, while there is no central law on begging and destitution, several States have either adopted the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 or have modeled their laws on it. The Act prescribes a punishment of detention for not more than three years if a person who was detained in a certified institution, is found begging and is convicted for the first time. All offences under the Act, except those under Section 11, are to be tried summarily. Section 11 which gives the opportunity of being heard to the accused, imposes a punishment of a minimum of one year and a maximum of three years imprisonment on those who cause others to beg or use them for begging.  

                                        It must be brought out here that the Act was made applicable to Delhi in 1960. The Delhi High Court was hearing two PILs – filed by social activists Harsh Mander and Karnika Sawhney – challenging the constitutionality and validity of all Sections, except Section 11 of the Act. They had alleged a violation of Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India by the impugned provisions. They had pointed out that the definition of “begging” under the Act violated Article 14, as it does not make any distinction between persons who solicit or receive money for authorized purposes and those who are singing, dancing or engaged in similar activities.

                                     In addition, they had further alleged that the Act was being arbitrarily applied. They submitted that, “While the Act unjustly restricts the movement of beggars, the application of the Act also limits the movement of a large number of no-beggars. Interviews with lawyers providing legal aid have revealed that 74% of persons arrested were from the informal labour sector such as those employed in small hotels, markets and construction, and 45% were homeless. It was observed that beggars were unaware of the reasons of arrest and were taken to the Beggars Court at the pretext of doing some work like cleaning.”    

                                         As things stood, the Bench agreed with the petitioners contentions and noted inter alia that the law does not in fact make any distinction between types of begging i.e. voluntary or involuntary. It further noted that the State was using homelessness and begging synonymously and termed this arbitrary. Besides, the Court considered the “futility” of lodging and detaining beggars in beggars home as a wastage of public funds, and highlighted the inadequacy of the impugned provisions, observing, “”If we want to eradicate begging, artificial means to make beggars invisible will not suffice. A move to criminalize them will make them invisible without addressing the root cause of the problem. The root cause is poverty, which has many structural reasons: no access to education, social protection, discrimination based on caste and ethnicity, landlessness, physical and mental challenges and isolation.”

                                      Suffice it to say, the Bench said the inevitable consequence of this verdict would be that the prosecutions under the Act against those who are alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. It held that, “The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained herein.”

                                 Needless to say, in her last judgment as the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Justice Gita Mittal who has been approved as the Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court minced absolutely no words in stating clearly and categorically that, “People in this stratum do not have access to basic necessities such as food, shelter and health, and in addition criminalizing them denies them the basic fundamental right to communicate and seek to deal with their plight.” Absolutely right! No person in his right senses will ever disagree with what Justice Gita Mittal has said!     

                                          Be it noted, Delhi Prevention of Begging Rules 1960 formulated under the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act 1959, makes begging an offence. Under this offence, beggars were often picked up and produced before the courts from where they were sent to beggar homes. The 23-page landmark judgment came on two pleas, challenging various sections of the Bombay Begging Act which was adopted by the Union Territory of Delhi in 1960. Para 1 of this landmark judgment begins by pointing out that, “These writ petitions challenge the constitutionality and validity of all sections, except Section 11 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 (hereafter referred to as the ‘Act’) as extended to the Union Territory of Delhi (now the NCT of Delhi) vide G.S.R. No. 638 dated 2nd June, 1960, published in the Gazette of India, pt. 11, Section 3(i), dated 11th June, 1960 on the ground that it violates the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.”

                                      Truth be told, the Bench of Delhi High Court said that they are spared the necessity of striking down the entire Act and dealt with 25 Sections which either treat begging as an offence committed by the beggar or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence among others. It held that, “These provisions either treat begging as an offence committed by the beggar, or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence, the nature of enquiry to be conducted therein, punishments and penalties to be awarded for the offence, the institutions to which such “offenders” could be committed and procedures following the awarding of sentence for committing the said offence.” It further went on to say that, “These provisions, in our view, cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny and deserve, therefore, to be struck down.”  

                                        Simply put, while striking down the legal provision criminalizing begging in the capital, the Bench of Delhi High Court observed that, “Begging is their last resort to subsistence; they have no other means to survive.” It also observed that, “People beg on the streets not because they wish to, but because they need to.” It also slammed the government for its failure to ensure the bare essentials of the right to life to all its citizens, even in Delhi, the national capital.

                                         As it turned out, the Delhi High Court Bench added that the state is at liberty to bring in an alternative legislation to curb any rackets of forced begging, after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter. It also sent out a loud and clear message to the State by holding that, “If the State wishes to criminalise specific types of forced beggary, it has to first think out a clear factual basis and impact thereof to pass a well thought legislation after due application of mind and being mindful of the rights provided under the Constitution of India.”

                                     It must be reiterated that the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959 functions as the derivative figure for all state anti-begging laws. Several beggars have been thrown into jail in the capital under the law. Such laws must be struck down and in Delhi this is exactly what the Delhi High Court has opted to do!

                                 Truly speaking, the Delhi High Court very clearly and convincingly held that, “Begging is a symptom of a disease, of the fact that the person has fallen through the socially created net. The government has the mandate to provide social security for everyone, to ensure that all citizens have basic facilities, and the presence of beggars is evidence that the state has not managed to provide these to all its citizens.” It also said that, “We find reports of starvations deaths in the newspapers and ensuring education to the 6 to 14 year old remains a challenge.” Madhur Verma who is Delhi Police spokesperson while hailing this landmark judgment rightly said that, “It’s a welcome move as begging is more of a social menace. It requires a more inclusive approach. Arresting someone for begging was hardly ever a solution.”

                                  Until now, the police was empowered to arrest beggars. This was used to arrest many poor and hapless beggars which only further served to rub salt on their wounds! But this landmark judgment will certainly now act as the most potential deterrent in protecting beggars from being arbitrarily arrested and thrown behind bars just for begging! It has most certainly come as a real beacon of hope for these poor hapless beggars who feel their voice is unrepresented among the higher echelons of ruling class!  

                                    It cannot be lost on us that para 31 of this landmark judgment pulls back no punches in conveying it clearly and categorically that, “Criminalizing begging is a wrong approach to deal with the underlying causes of the problem. It ignores the reality that people who beg are the poorest of the poor and marginalized in society. Criminalizing begging violates the most fundamental rights of some of the most vulnerable people in our society.” Para 33 further observes that, “The State simply cannot fail to do its duty to provide a decent life to its citizens and add insult to injury by arresting, detaining and, if necessary, imprisoning such persons, who beg, in search for essentials of bare survival, which is even below sustenance. A person who is compelled to beg cannot be faulted for such actions in these circumstances. Any legislation, penalizing the people, therefore, is in the teeth of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”

                       Conclusions

                                    In essence, para 40 of this landmark judgment says that, “When, in the backdrop of the above discussion, we examine holistically, the provisions of the Act, we find that, while most of the provisions contained therein directly deal with begging, treating it as an offence, or other provisions ancillary thereto, there are certain provisions which do not treat beggary per se as an offence and which therefore, may not be hit by the vice of unconstitutionality.” Para 41 further stipulates that, “We are, therefore, spared the necessity of striking down the entire Act, wholesale. The provisions which treat beggary/begging as an offence, committed by the beggar, or are ancillary thereto, would be Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29.”

                                        Moving ahead, para 42 observes that, “These provisions either treat begging as an offence committed by the beggar, or deal with ancillary issues such as powers of officers to deal with the said offence, the nature of enquiry to be conducted therein, punishments and penalties to be awarded for the offence, the institutions to which such “offenders” could be committed and procedures following the awarding of sentence for committing the said offence. These provisions, in our view, cannot sustain constitutional scrutiny and deserve, therefore, to be struck down.” The next para 43 further says that, “The remaining provisions of the Act, which do not directly or indirectly criminalize begging, or relate to the “offence” of begging, such as Section 11 (which deals with penalty for employing or causing persons to solicit or receive alms, or using such persons as exhibits), Section 30 (which deals with seizure and disposal of animals exposed or exhibited for obtaining or extorting alms), and other provisions which deal with the nature of offences under the Act, appeals, the power to frame rules and removal of difficulties, would not be required to be struck down and are, therefore, maintained.”    

                                   Result

                                  Finally and most importantly, we now deal with what the Delhi High Court gave in its result. In para 44, it held that, “In the result, we declare Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959, as extended to Delhi, as unconstitutional and strike down the said provisions.” In para 45, it held that, “The inevitable sequitur to our decision would be that all prosecutions, under the Act against persons alleged to have committed the offence of begging, would be liable to be struck down. The power to do so would, however, appropriately vest in the Courts seized of such prosecutions, and we, therefore, limit ourselves to observing that the fate of such prosecutions, if any, would have to abide by the present judgment, and our observations and findings contained therein.” In para 46, it also held that, “The state is always at liberty to bring in alternative legislation to curb any racket of forced begging after undertaking an empirical examination on the sociological and economic aspects of the matter.” Last but not the least, para 47 winds up by noting that, “Before parting with the case, we are reminded of the words of Krishna Iyer, J in the pronouncement reported at AIR 1981 SC 674 Gopalanachari v State of Kerala when he said that, “…If men can be whisked away by the police and imprisoned for long months and the court can keep the cases pending without thought to the fact that an old man is lying in cellular confinement without hope of his case being disposed of, Article 21, read with Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution, remain symbolic and scriptural rather than a shield against unjust deprivation. Law is not a mascot but a defender of the faith. Surely, if law behaves lawlessly, social justice becomes a judicial hoax.”

                                            In the ultimate analysis, it is a landmark judgment which will ensure that beggars don’t land up in jail just because of begging. It is one of the finest judgment which must be read by every literate person! It will certainly not tantamount to an exaggeration from any angle to say that it is worthy of being emulated by all courts from top to bottom!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

It has to be stated before anything else that in a landmark judgment which is being considered as a huge blow to the AAP Government in Delhi, the Delhi High Court in its landmark judgment titled Federation of Okhla Industrial Association (Regd) v Lt Governor of Delhi and anr in W.P.(C) 8125/2016 & CM No. 3362/2016 reserved on 22 May and delivered finally on 4 August, 2018, quashed its much-touted March 2017 order revising the minimum wages for all classes of workmen in scheduled employment, opining clearly and categorically that the same was ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Bench of Delhi High Court comprising Acting Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice C Hari Shankar further opined that the impugned notification suffered from “non-application of mind”, was not based on any material and violated principles of natural justice. So it was but natural that it had to be quashed!   

                                Truth be told, the Bench also declared  explicitly that the constitution of the Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for all scheduled employments by the Government as ultra vires Sections 5(1) and 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, opining that the formation of this Committee was “completely flawed”. It should not have been set up at the first place! This Delhi High Court’s latest landmark judgment was issued primarily as a culmination of the petitions that were filed by employers – associations of traders, petrol dealers and restaurants – who had challenged the two notifications – one that was issued in September 2016 reconstituting the Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for all scheduled employments, and another issued in March 2017, revising the minimum rates of wages for all classes of workmen/employees in all scheduled employments.  

                                     Be it noted, para 2 of this landmark judgment states that, “An attempt to constitute a Minimum Wage Advisory Committee by an order dated 12th April, 2016, had already disrupted the course of wage revision once. Alas, even though the revision is sorely needed, the hurried attempt again, inter alia failing to comport with binding the statutory requirements, without relevant material and contravening principles of Natural Justice has unfortunately disrupted this course, yet again.” There can be no denying it!

                                      Going forward, para 3 further goes on to say that, “This batch of writ petitions, lays a challenge to the constitutionality of the Notification bearing no. F-13(16)/MW/1/2008/Lab/1859 dated 15th September, 2016 issued by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by Section 5(1) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (hereafter referred to as ‘the Act’). By this notification, the respondents re-constituted the Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for all scheduled employments.” Para 4 further reveals that, “These petitions also challenge the constitutional validity of the Notification bearing no. F. Addl.LC/Lab/MW/2016 dated 3rd of March 2017 published in the Official Gazette on 4th March, 2017, again issued by the respondents, in exercise of power conferred by Section 5(2) of the enactment. By this Notification, minimum rates of wages for all classes of workmen/employees in all scheduled employments stand revised w.e.f. the date of the notification in the official gazette. The challenge rests, inter alia, on the plea of the petitioners that both these notifications are ultra vires the provisions of the enactment itself and that the respondents also violated the principles in issuance of the notifications.”

            Hurried Actions Of The Government

                                     It cannot be lost on us that this landmark judgment authored by Acting Chief Justice of Delhi High Court Gita Mittal begins by first and foremost quoting Lewis Caroll from Alice in Wonderland that, “The hurrier I go, the behinder I get” to assert emphatically that the quote “appropriately manifests the manner in which the hurried actions of the respondents would set back the entire workforce of the city.” It then goes on to note that while an attempt to revise wages was in fact “sorely needed”, the hurried attempt, without adherence to binding statutory requirements, without relevant material and in violation of principles of natural justice, disrupted the entire exercise.”  

            Crux of the Judgment

                                It would be in the fitness of things to now shell out the crux of this entire landmark judgment which will make the whole picture very clear as to what it implies. In other words, it can be safely said that it is the summary of the conclusions that Delhi High Court Bench held bare so explicitly. The key points as laid down in the concluding part of this landmark judgment are as follows: –

1.  The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with a notification fixing minimum wages only on “the most substantial grounds”.   

2.  The purport and object of the Act in fixing the minimum wage rate is clearly to prevent exploitation of labour. The hardship caused to individual employers or their inability to meet the burden of minimum wages or its upward revision, has no relevance.

3.  The object, intendment and provisions of the Minimum wages Act, 1948 are clear and unambiguous, and therefore, the applicability of the beneficent rule of interpretation is completely unnecessary.

4.   Minimum wages have to be more than wages at the subsistence level, have to take into consideration all relevant factors and prescriptions made after due application of mind and must take into consideration the norms and component as approved by the Supreme Court in the Reptakos judgment.

5.  The Supreme Court has rejected challenges to the constitutionality of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for the reason that the legislation has ensured the mechanism provided under Section 5, 7 and 9 of the enactment. This places the requirement of compliance with the provisions thereunder on an extremely high pedestal and they had to be strictly adhered to by the respondents.

6.  The appropriate government is required to take into account the report and advice rendered by the Committee/Advisory Board and to apply independent mind and take a balanced decision so far as fixation or revision of minimum wages is concerned. The Government is not bound by the recommendations of the Committee. It is open to the Government to accept (wholly or in part) or to reject the advice of the Board or report of the Committee.

7.  While there is no absolute prohibition on an employee of the Government being nominated as an independent member of the Committee under Section 5 of the Minimum Wages Act, an objection to such nomination has to be decided on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is only when minimum wages are under consideration for an industry in which the State may be vitally interested as an employer, that it may not be proper to nominate an official to the Committee treating him to be an independent member.

8. A defect in composition of the Committee under Section 5 would not per se vitiate either its advice or the decision taken thereon. A defect in the composition of the Committee would vitiate its advice, or the ultimate decision of the Government fixing the minimum wages, only if such illegality or defect has worked to the prejudice to a party, for example where the interest of a particular group of employer or employees has not been represented or has not been taken into consideration.

9. The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation is not an employer engaged in scheduled employment in Delhi and it could not have been appointed on the Committee under Section 5 as a representative of the employer.

10. Though the eligibility of the officers of the Labour Department or the Director of Economics & Statistics as members of the Committee cannot be faulted, however they failed to conduct themselves dispassionately and did not apply their independent minds. The respondent has appointed the very officials as independent persons on a Committee, which had already taken a view in the matter and made recommendations as members of a Committee in the year 2016, therefore, when appointed for the second time, they were clearly close-minded and proceeded in the matter in a predetermined manner.

11. The respondents have denied the statutorily mandated representation to the actual employers in scheduled employments in Delhi which tantamount to non-compliance of Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and failure on the part of the respondents to constitute a Committee required by law to be constituted.

12. It is essential that under Section 5(1) of the MW Act, a Committee “properly constituted” is “genuinely invited” with an open (‘receptive’) mind to tender advice to the appropriate Government.

13. It has to be held that employers in the scheduled employments as well as employees with divergent views stand ousted from the consideration and their interests certainly compromised to their prejudice. This prejudice to the employers and employees would constitute a ‘most’ substantial ground (Ref : (2008) 5 SCC 428 (para 14), Manipal Academy of Higher Education vs. Provident Fund Commissioner) justifying interference by this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226.

14. Clearly the Government of NCT of Delhi was aware of the requirement of law and consciously failed to comport to the same.

15. It is not open to a representative to insist on an oral hearing before the Committee appointed under Section 5 or the Advisory Board under Section 7 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

16. The fixation of minimum wages in Delhi cannot be faulted simply because they are higher than the rates of minimum wages fixed in surrounding States and Towns.

17. The Committee in making its recommendations, as well as the respondents in issuing the singular notification for uniform minimum wages for all scheduled employments, have completely ignored vital and critical aspects having material bearing on the issue.

18. Any change in the prescribed rates of minimum wages, is bound to impact both the industry and the workmen. The respondents were bound to meaningfully comply with the principles of natural justice especially, the principles of fair play and due process. The representatives of the employers, had a legitimate expectation of being heard as the advice of the Committee was to inevitably affect them, which has been denied to them before the decision to revise minimum wages was finalized.     

19. The constitution of the Committee was completely flawed and its advice was not based on relevant material and suffers from non-application of mind. The Government decision based on such advice is in violation of express statutory provision, principles of natural justice, denied fair representation to the employers as well as the employees in fact without any effort even to gather relevant material and information.

20. The non-application of mind by the committee and the respondents, to the relevant material considerations, offends Article 14 of the Constitution of India.   

                              Having said this, it must be now stated that in para 365 of this landmark judgment, it is pointed out that, “The Notification bearing no. F-13(16)/MW/1/2008/Lab/1859 dated 15th September, 2016 issued by the respondents constituting the Minimum Wages Advisory Committee for all scheduled employments is ultra vires Section 5(1) and Section 9 of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and is hereby declared invalid and quashed.”

                                  Furthermore, in para 366, it is pointed out that, “The Notification bearing no. F. Addl. LC/Lab/MW/2016 dated 3rd of March 2017 issued by the respondents revising minimum rates of wages for all classes of workmen/employees in all scheduled employments is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India; of Section 3 & Section 5(2) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, of Rule 20 of the Minimum Wages (Central) Rules; appears from non-application of mind, is based on no material and is in contravention of principles of Natural Justice and is hereby declared invalid and quashed.” Also, para 368 says that, “The applications are disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.” Finally para 369 concludes the judgment by saying that, “No order as to costs.”  

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Coming straight to the core issue, it has to be noted right at the outset that in a landmark judgment delivered on July 6, 2018 with far reaching consequences, the Uttarakhand High Court in Chandra Shekhar Joshi v State of Uttarakhand & others in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 71 of 2015 recently issued a slew of commendable directions for improving the functioning of Government Medical College, Haldwani and its associate hospitals. The Court was hearing a petition filed by one Chandra Shekhar Joshi who had highlighted the lack of basic facilities at the Government Medical College, Haldwani and its associate hospitals, Dr Sushila Tewari Memorial Hospital and Swami Rama Cancer Hospital and Research Centre. It is the “poorest of poor” who cannot afford to go to private hospitals who have to suffer the most which cannot be condoned under any circumstances!

                                      As it turned out, on the oral application of petitioner, the Medical Council of India is added as respondent no. 6 in the petition. Para 3 of this landmark judgment brings out that, “According to the averments made in the petition, the institution is plagued with absenteeism. The poor patients are not getting specialized treatment. Number of posts are lying vacant. Patients are not getting the medicines from the hospital. There is a tendency among the doctors to refer the patients to other hospitals.” This is most deplorable and depreciable! Why should patients be referred to other hospitals and not treated there only?

                                         To be sure, it is rightly highlighted in para 4 of this landmark judgment that the hospital does not fall under the administrative control of the Department of Medical Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Uttarakhand. It falls under the control of the Department of Medical Education. For this reason, free medicines cannot be provided.

                                   Truth be told, para 5 points out that, “A startling revelation has been made that Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute currently has the Department of Radiotherapy only. Here, the conventional radiotherapy is delivered and also Brachytherapy is done. Simple forms of chemotherapy are often performed but complex form of chemotherapy is not feasible due to lack of medical oncology department. There is no Surgical Oncology Department yet. The Department of General Surgery and ENT often perform cancer surgeries when possible. The Departments of Medical Oncology, Surgical Oncology are due to be brought in when the institute is upgraded to State Cancer Institute. There are no Neurology, Gastrology, Nephrology, Urology or Cardiology Departments in the hospital. There is no independent Cardiology Department.”

                                             Going forward, in para 8, it is rightly brought out that, “Government Medical College, Haldwani (formerly known as U.K. Forest Hospital Trust Medical College) is only medical college in Haldwani, Uttarakhand, India. It was established in 1997. The Government Medical College, Haldwani is the first post graduate college in Uttarakhand, recognized by the Medical Council of India and the Government of India. The Govt. Medical College Haldwani has two hospitals associated with it – Dr Sushila Tiwari Memorial Hospital and Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Center. Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Center was inaugurated on 22nd February, 2010. However, there is only one Department which is functional i.e. Radiotherapy. The lack of oncological disciplines of medical oncology, surgical oncology, haematological oncology, gynaecological oncology & pediatric oncology is acutely affecting the population of the state at present.”

                                  Needless to say, para 12 of this landmark judgment further brings out that, “There are no facilities like Neo-adjuvent, and Adjuvent for Cancer patients. Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute has been established in the year 2010 but till date, the Oncology Department is not in existence. There is no Medical Oncologist, Surgical Oncologist, Gynecological Oncologist or Pediatric Oncologist in the medical college. Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute is functional since 22.2.2010 and it is shocking that till date, no Specialists have been appointed except the opening of Department of Radiotherapy. Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Center has virtually become defunct in absence of specialists.”    

                             Let me hasten to add here that in para 13, it was explicitly held that, “The time has come when the State Government should accord Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute as the State Cancer Institute by providing it the latest state of art equipment including Positron Emission Tomography (PET), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Computed Tomography (CT) Scan and Specialists namely medical Oncologists, Surgical Oncologists, Hematological Oncologists, Gynecological Oncologists and Pediatric Oncologists at the earliest. The facilities provided to the Cancer Hospital in a big building are confined only to the Concurrent and Palliative Chemotherapy. The posts in Clinical and Non-Clinical Branches are lying vacant. There are no details of the persons who applied and were selected pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Medical College. The posts are required to be filled up of Teaching as well as Non-Teaching Staff in all the Departments as per the Minimum Standard Requirements for the Medical College for 100 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999. The Equipment is to be provided as per Schedule III of the Regulations at the earliest.”

                                      Furthermore, it is underscored in para 14 that, “The poorest of poor patients visit the medical college. They have a fundamental right to be treated by the Specialists. It is the duty cast upon the State Government to provide free medicines/drugs to the poorest of poor.” On similar lines, in para 27, the Bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Lok Pal Singh asserted vocally that, “Every citizen has a fundamental right to health. The State has the obligation to provide best medical services to its citizens. The poorest of poor cannot go to the private hospitals. Since the latest equipment is not available with the respondent – Medical College, the parents are referred to other hospitals including private hospitals.”

                                    While clearly and convincingly exposing the shortcomings, this landmark judgment in para 24 points out that, “A startling revelation has been made that 4 posts of Professors, 4 posts of Associate Professor/Reader, 1 post of Medical Superintendent, 1 post of Dean are lying vacant in the medical college. 29 posts of Tutor/Registrar/Sr. Resident and 68 posts of Junior Resident and 1 post of Deputy Librarian are lying vacant. In total, 129 posts in this category are lying vacant.” Para 25 goes on to further point out that, “There are 310 sanctioned posts of Staff Nurse out of which 142 have been filled up on regular basis and 64 posts have been filled up through UPNL. Nursing is the backbone of any medical institute. In all, 104 posts of Staff Nurse are lying vacant.” It is also conceded in para 26 that, “Now as far as the technical staff is concerned, 380 posts are lying vacant. These posts are required to be filled up on emergent basis. The hospitals cannot be left sick.”

                                  Bluntly put, para 28 observes astonishingly that, “It is surprising to note that the Medical College has no Department of Neurology, Gastrology, Nephrology, Urology or Cardiology. These Departments are essential for public health. The State Government is required to take immediate steps for creation of these Departments in the Govt. Medical College, Haldwani at the earliest. The surgeries of the cancer patients are required to be undertaken only by the Oncologists/Medical Surgeons from their respective branches.” As if this is not enough, it is further observed in para 29 that, “A startling revelation has been made in the daily edition of ‘The Pioneer’ dated 3rd July, 2018 that 61 Ambulances are lying idle in the compound of office of Director General (Health). The ambulances are required to be refurbished immediately to make them functional. Ambulances which have completed their maximum mileage are required to be replaced.”

                                    To top it all, para 30 further observes that, “It has also come into light that there is also acute shortage of doctors in Kumaon Division as per the daily edition of ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 3rdJuly, 2018. There is shortage of 267 doctors in Kumaon Region. The total posts sanctioned are 981 out of which only 714 doctors are working and 267 posts are lying vacant.” Worst of all, para 31 laments that, “There is no Trauma Center in the Medical College. The Trauma Center is required for the simple reason that due to the terrain and geographical conditions of the State, the fatal accidents do occur wherein the passengers receive serious injuries. They are required to be operated upon immediately by the Neurosurgeons. The Trauma Center is a must in every Medical College.”

                                         Needless to say, para 32 makes a scathing attack for not spending enough on purchasing the latest equipments. It says that, “Petitioner has also placed on record the details of the budgetary provision. A sum of Rs 23.00 crores was spent for the construction of Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Center. The system cannot permit non-utilization/under utilization of building constructed at the cost of Rs 23.00 crores. The amount is contributed by the tax payers. The system is accountable for every pie spent by the government. Budgetary provisions are available for the medical college but still the latest equipment is not purchased for the reasons best known to the management of the Medical College.”

                                      Finally and most importantly, para 33 which is the concluding part of the judgment concludes by saying that, “Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by issuing the following mandatory directions: –

A.  The respondent-State is directed to make Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute fully functional by creating the posts of Medical Oncologists, Surgical Oncologists, Hematological Oncologists, Gynecological Oncologists and Paediatric Oncologists within three months from today by holding the walk-in interviews. The State is also directed to upgrade the status of Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute to the State Cancer Institute within three months. The State is also directed to give incentives to the specialists to join premier institution in the State of Uttarakhand by giving them at least 15 advance increments, suitable accommodation and conveyance befitting their status.

B.  Since Swami Rama Cancer Hospital & Research Institute is the constituent hospital of Medical College, the State Government is directed to provide the latest state of art equipments/machinery required under the Minimum Standard Requirements of the Medical College for 100 Admissions Annually Regulations, 1999 for training and teaching of the MBBS and MD/MS students within two months.

C.  The respondent-State is directed to establish the Nephrology, Neurology, Urology and Cardiology Departments in the Medical College within three months. Thereafter, the posts shall be filled up within a further period of three months by holding the walk-in interviews.

D. The State Government is directed to establish the Trauma Center in Government Medical College, Haldwani and make it functional within three months from today as per the standard procedure.

E.  The State Government is directed to fill up all the posts of teaching staff as well as non-teaching staff, lying vacant in the Medical College, within three months from today to provide quality treatment to the patients. The first preference shall be given to the teaching faculty including clinical and thereafter to non-clinical and nursing.

F.   The State Government is directed to deploy 61 newly acquired ambulances after refurbishing them within one month from today.

G. The State Government is directed to fill up all the vacancies of Medical Officers in Kumaon Division within four months from today.

H. The State Government is directed to install the MRI/PET, Mammography and other states of art equipment for treatment of patients and training and teaching of MBBS and MD/MS students within three months from today.

I.     The State Government is directed to provide essential life-saving drugs/medicines to the patients free-of-cost.

J.    The Principal of the Medical College is directed to ensure absolute hygiene in the hospital and if necessary, by outsourcing the same.

K.   The State Government may consider constructing Inns/Sarays for the attendants of patients in the close vicinity of the hospital.

L.   The Medical Council of India shall carry out the inspection of the Medical College immediately after six months to ensure that all the parameters laid down by it are followed in letter and spirit by the respondent- Medical College failing which it shall be open to the MCI to take action, as envisaged under law, against the Medical College for non-fulfilling the minimum standards.”

                                    All said and done, it is a landmark judgment and its mandatory and laudable directions must be implemented in letter and spirit in totality. It will go a long way in ensuring that the poorest of poor who cannot afford to go to private hospitals get proper treatment for cancer. It is India which tops in world with maximum death from cancer at 2.2 million per year.

                                       To be sure, health spending has pushed 55 million Indians into poverty in a year as was published in ‘The Times of India’ on June 13, 2018. Cancer has the highest probability of resulting in ‘catastrophic expenditure’ for a household. But it can be checked if the landmark directives laid down in this landmark judgment are implemented in totality. It will also go a long way in ensuring that the Medical Colleges function as per the directives laid down. Not just this, it will also certainly go a long way in improving the functioning of Government Medical College and Associate Hospitals which is the crying need of the hour!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh

It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority of those who hate India and enjoy stone pelting at forces are being mocked at repeatedly by Centre by just not providing any security to them and their family! In just few days we keep hearing soldiers from Jammu and Kashmir having been abducted at gun point and then tortured and then killed! Centre proudly spends more than Rs 560 crore on Hurriyat leaders who just hate India and always rant against India and openly swear loyalty with Pakistan but is not prepared to spend even a small mount on safety of soldiers of Jammu and Kashmir! Soldiers of Jammu and Kashmir are being repeatedly abducted from their home itself and then killed after bring tortured yet we see neither Centre nor Opposition taking it seriously! 

Truth be told, the latest to be killed is police constable Mohammad Salim Shah who was killed by suspected militants after his abduction on night of July 20 from his house. His multiple bullet injuries was found on July 21 afternoon in Qaimoh village of South Kashmir’s Kulgam district! He was brutally tortured and he was videographed which was later sent to all news channels just like in case of earlier killings so that no one from Jammu and Kashmir join forces!

Be it noted, Salim had been recently promoted and was working as a Special Police Officer and was undergoing training in Kathua! He had come home in Muthalhama of Kulgam district on leave. He is the 25th policemen killed by militants in Jammu and Kashmir this year! 

What is most reprehensible to note is that Centre and Opposition both are not raising this and feel that there is nothing wrong in spending more than Rs 560 crore on security of Hurriyat leaders whom militants always hail and feel no need to provide security to soldiers of Jammu and Kashmir! As if this is not enough, even Supreme Court whom we all or at least I can say for myself consider as “Living God” too just says nothing on it even though it feels very angry on mob killing and mob lynching which certainly deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms! But why this deafening silence on soldiers killings and stone pelters who pelt stone in favour of terrorists?

To be sure, we all saw how earlier this month in July, another police constable Javed Ahmad Dar too was abducted from his vehicle at Vehil in Shopian district and killed after being tortured by militants yet Centre feels we should just relax because at least Hurriyat leaders are safe on whom crores are being spent for their security! As if this was not enough, in June an Army soldier Aurangzeb Khan was also abducted from a private vehicle when he was going home for Eid in Shopian. His body was recovered from a Pulwama village. He was killed after being tortured similarly as he fearlessly admitted that along with Major Shukla he was responsible for killing of many terrorists! 

Bluntly put: A brave and die hard nationalist like Aurangzeb Khan can never die. His life is the biggest offering that he himself voluntarily sacrificed for the nation! No weapon, no terrorist, no Pakistan, no China or any other country can ever kill the likes of brave soldiers like Aurangzeb of 44 RR who belonged to 4 Jammu and Kashmir Light Infantry at Shadimarg in Shopian and hailed from the village Salani in Poonch district of Jammu.

Any Indian who does not feel to salute Aurangzeb can never be a true Indian! What Aurangzeb has done so willingly cannot be done even by me and I candidly acknowledge this! No award, no Bharat Ratna, no Nobel Prize, no Paramveer Chakra or any other award can ever honour Aurangzeb because Aurangzeb stands tallest above all these petty awards!

Even after being captured by terrorists and even after being tied to a tree, he did not show any sign of fear nor did he plead to be spared. He voluntarily acknowledged his brave role in eliminating several terrorists along with Maj Shukla when cross questioned by terrorists without showing any sign of fear! He could have blamed others for killing terrorists and could have escaped being killed but he dared to confront them and didn’t fear for his life nor pleaded for mercy!

Aurangzeb is our national pride, national icon and no politician, no political party can ever mock at him by denying him any award because he stands above all such petty considerations and his supreme sacrifice is the biggest testimony to it. The biggest tribute that we can pay to Aurangzeb is by adopting zero tolerance policy towards terrorists and Pakistan! No license should ever again be given to Pakistan or terrorists in the name of Ramzan to kill our soldiers by ordering forces to take no action against them because this tantamount to mocking at Ramzan which under no circumstances can ever be associated with terrorists and Pakistan who leave no opportunity to slaughter our citizens and soldiers whenever they get any opportunity to do so! Why was this unfettered license given to Pakistan and terrorists knowing fully well what they do as they have done in past also and even former PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee was compelled to revoke this so called “Ramzan ka ceasefire”? Why Supreme Court also just says nothing on it?

How long will politicians plead ceasefire for terrorists, traitors and Pakistan? How long will politicians plead “talks and dialogues” with these rogues? How long will politicians refuse to learn anything from past experiences like the brutal murder of Lieutenant Umar Fayyaz and continue appeasing terrorists and Pakistan? How long will Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status for Pakistan continue since 1996 unilaterally like unilateral ceasefire till now? How long will Pakistan enjoy benefit of Indus Water Treaty will killing our citizens mercilessly?

Mohammad Haneef Khan who is Aurangzeb’s father who is himself an ex-serviceman stands perfectly justified when he says that, “I want to ask PM Modi if he’s listening to me, why are you appeasing stone-pelters and separatists? Punish the terrorists who killed my son. Why was Ramzan ceasefire announced? Terrorists have no religion, then why operations were stopped against them during Ramzan? Why Pakistani flags are allowed to be waved openly in India?” What Mohammad Haneef has said is perfectly right and no sane person will ever question this!

How can cases be withdrawn suddenly against more than 10,000 stone-pelters by J&K State Government? How can a crime be encouraged openly by a duly elected State Government? How can Centre too endorse it by doing nothing to stop this? Does Centre favour stone pelting on our soldiers! Never saw stone pelting on such a large scale as we are now seeing in PM Narendra Damodardas Modi’s Raj!Why even Supreme Court didn’t intervene and stop Jammu and Kashmir State Government led by former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti from acting against India’s national interests?

Why politicians never want Pakistan to be declared a “terror state” and named “Aatankistan” as demanded by Maulana Mehmood Madani who is leader of Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and MP from Bangalore Rajeev Chandrashekhar even though they demand the same from world at very international forum like UN? What is the real mystery behind this? Why is free license given to “traitors, terrorists and Pakistan” to kill our brave soldiers and others during Ramzan? Is Ramzan meant to kill Indians? How long will leaders fool themselves and this nation?

What is happening now so brazenly in PM Modi’s time in Kashmir is most shocking and still he keeps appearing in fitness challenge along with his cabinet colleagues like Colonel Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore who inspite of having an Army background shamelessly does “fitness exercise” even as Pakistan kills many of our BSF soldiers in Samba along with an Assistant Commandant as also Aurangzeb and a senior journalist Shujaat Bukhari who was editor of “Rising Kashmir” and bombards our border areas forcing lakhs to migrate and here too many women and children are killed! Why is all this taken so lightly? We see Rahul and Modi hugging each other in Parliament even as soldiers from Jammu and Kashmiri soldiers are being slaughtered repeatedly as has happened just recently with Mohammad Salim Shah! Pakistan merges PoK with Pakistan but our politicians don’t have the guts to ensure the “full and final merger of J&K with India! Why can’t we also act similarly?

Former CJI JS Khehar while in office as CJI had rightly said that, “How can one country have two flags, two Constitutions, two laws and two citizenship?” Why can’t Centre abrogate Article 370 and Article 35A which are most discriminatory and forbids Indians from outside the state to settle there or even appear in any exam there? What have we gained by it? Flags of Pakistan and ISIS! For how long this disgraceful appeasement will continue? No law, no Constitution, no Judge, no Court not even Supreme Court can be above the unity and integrity of India which has to be ensured under all circumstances!

What message is Centre sending by caring a damn for the repeated killings of our brave soldiers and instead appearing in news channels to issue “fitness challenge” to heroes, heroines, and others? What message is Centre sending by celebrating “Yoga Day” and caring a damn for the anger of the families of our brave soldiers like Aurangzeb who got killed because of this Ramzan ceasefire? Is this the biggest tribute that is being paid to our soldiers? Should we be proud of it? No wonder, more and more soldiers from Jammu and Kashmir are being killed!

Lieutenant Umar Fayyaz who hailed from Kashmir was slaughtered by terrorists last year. DSP Mohammad Ayyub Pandit was posted for security of Hurriyat leaders but he was himself killed after the mob was provoked by some leaders! Stone pelters in Modi’s Raj attack our soldiers openly and their helmets are thrown in gutter after being slapped who still say nothing even while they are fighting terrorists yet Supreme Court says nothing on this even though it speaks about zero tolerance for human rights violations by forces in Manipur! Is this not double standard? Why Centre always want security forces to exercise restraint and restraint and cases are lodged against them for exercising right of self-defence but cases against stone pelters are withdrawn at the drop of a hat yet not just Centre but even Supreme Court just says nothing?

Who is the great military adviser who is advising and guiding our PM and Home Minister to resort to all such foolish and self-destructive actions like Ramzan ceasefire, continuing with MFN status for Pakistan unilaterally, retaining Article 370 and Article 35A, continue spending Rs 560 crore every year from taxpayers money on Hurriyat leaders who openly shout slogans favouring Pakistan while not spending a penny on providing security to soldiers from Jammu and Kashmir, continue allowing Pakistan to take advantage of Indus Water Treaty which Modi had earlier himself criticised and many more such foolish acts? On a concluding note, soldiers like Mohammad Salim and Aurangzeb and other such Jammu and Kashmir soldiers are national icon who inspite of being tortured and beaten brutally pledge loyalty for India and for this are killed finally needs no recommendation or citation or award or anything else from any leader or politician to be respected because every true Indian will salute him always for the supreme sacrifice that he has rendered without any hesitation! But Supreme Court must now speak up very strongly for them by ordering Centre to provide security to them and their family and if this is not done that day is not far when no one from Jammu and Kashmir will ever like to join forces for a thankless nation which believes in providing security for Hurriyat and separatists and spending crores on it but not spending a penny for soldiers who love India and join forces! The earlier this is done, the better it shall be in our national interests! 

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

It must be stated right at the outset that in a landmark judgment with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court 3 Judge Bench in Tehseen S Poonawalla v Union of India and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016 dated July 17, 2018 comprising of CJI Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice Dr DY Chandrachud recommended that the Parliament may create a special law against lynching, asserting that “fear of law and veneration for the command of law constitute the foundation of a civilized society”. We all have seen that in the last few years there has been a sharp hike in the incidents of mob lynching based on rumours and speculations which many times are completely baseless! Those who indulge in mob lynching cannot be allowed to get away under the garb of “mob getting angry” over cow killing or any other cause and must be made to pay the price for their dastardly acts by ensuring that they are either hanged or made to spend their whole life behind bars!

                                      As it turned out, the Bench right at the very beginning in its landmark order made its intentions clear on citizens taking law in their own hands by holding clearly and categorically that, “Law enacted for the benefit of the society by conferring rights on the citizens and to regulate social behaviour in many a sphere, is required to be implemented by the law enforcing agencies and the citizens are duty bound to follow the law treating it as sacred. Law has to be regarded as the foundation of a civilized society. The primary goal of law is to have an orderly society where the citizenry dreams for change and progress is realized and the individual aspiration finds space for expression of his/her potential. In such an atmosphere while every citizen is entitled to enjoy the rights and interest bestowed under the constitutional and statutory law, he is also obligated to remain obeisant to the command of law. It has been stated in Krishnamoorthy v Sivakumar and others (2015) 3 SCC 467, “the law, the mightiest sovereign in a civilized country”. The majesty of law cannot be sullied simply because an individual or a group generate the attitude that they have been empowered by the principles set out in law to take its enforcement into their own hands and gradually become law unto themselves and punish the violator on their own assumption and in the manner in which they deem fit. They forget that the administration of law is conferred on the law enforcing agencies and no one is allowed to take law into his own hands on the fancy of his “shallow spirit of judgment”. Just as one is entitled to fight for his rights in law, the other is entitled to be treated as innocent till he is found guilty after a fair trial. No act of a citizen is to be adjudged by any kind of community under the guise of protectors of law. It is the seminal requirement of law that an accused is booked under law and is dealt with in accordance with the procedure without any obstruction so that substantive justice is done. No individual in his own capacity or as a part of a group, which within no time assumes the character of a mob, can take law into his/their hands and deal with a person treating him as guilty. That is not only contrary to the paradigm of established legal principles in our legal system but also inconceivable in a civilized society that respects the fundamental tenets of the rule of law. And, needless to say, such ideas and conceptions not only create a dent in the majesty of law but are also absolutely obnoxious.”    

                                      It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner who is a social activist has preferred this writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for commanding the respondent-State Nos. 3 to 8 which includes Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Jharkhand, Gujarat and Rajasthan to take immediate and necessary action against the cow protection groups indulging in violence; and further to issue a writ or direction to remove the violent contents from the social media uploaded and hosted by the said groups. Mr Sanjay R Hegde who as learned senior counsel appeared for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 754 of 2016 submitted that no individual or vigilante group can engage himself/themselves in an activity of lynching solely on the basis of a perception that a crime has been committed. He also submits “That apart, the supremacy of law has to be recognized and if a law prescribes a punishment for a crime, it has the mechanism provided under the law to do so. The procedural and the substantial safeguards are required to be followed.” He urged with all the emphasis at his command that lynching or any kind of mob violence has to be curbed and crippled by the executive and no excuse can ever be tolerated. Stress is laid on prevention, remedial and punitive measures by him. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a recent judgment rendered in Shakti Vahini v Union of India & others 2018 (5) SCALE 51.

                                  Going forward, it must also be mentioned here that Ms Indira Jaisingh who is learned senior counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 732 of 2017 made her own submissions. She has referred to Martin Luther King Jr. wherein he had said that law may not be able to make a man love him, but it can keep the man from lynching him. She submits that there has been a constant increase in the number of incidents in recent years as a consequence of which citizens belonging to minority communities have become victims of targeted violence which mainly originate on suspicion and at times misinformation that the victims were involved in illegal cattle trade and such other activities. It must be added here that she also referred to certain specific incidents of lynching. It is additionally argued by her that the Central Government be directed to intervene in exercise of the power conferred under Articles 256 and 257 of the Constitution to issue directions to the State Governments. Her point is valid!

                                  Moving ahead, she further urges that in the recent past, self-proclaimed and self-styled vigilantes have brazenly taken law into themselves and have targeted citizens belonging to certain communities and lower strata of the society which cannot be tolerated and it is the obligation of the Union and the States to take immediate action warranted in law to stop such activities. There can be no denying or disputing it! She has further submitted that there have been many an incident of lynching mostly by vigilante groups across the States of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi. It is her stringent stand that action is required to be taken against the perpetrators when approached by the family members of the victim.

                                      Apart from this, she has canvassed that it is the foremost duty of the Central and the State Governments to ensure that the members of the minorities are not targeted by mob violence and vigilante groups. She also contends that if the illegal actions of these lynchers are not totally curbed, there would be absolute chaos where any private individual can take law into his own hands for the enforcement of criminal law in accordance with his own judgment. What wrong has she said? Nothing wrong!

                                    Now coming to what the Supreme Court ruled after listening to submissions made from both sides. We shall discuss one by one on what all the Apex Court ruled. They are as follows: –

             On the State’s duty to maintain law and order

                                     At the outset itself, the Court asserted that it is the State’s duty to prevent any sort of mob vigilantism, observing, “The States have the onerous duty to see that no individual or any core group take law into their own hands. Every citizen has the right to intimate the police about the infraction of law. There cannot be an investigation, trial and punishment of any nature on the streets. The process of adjudication takes place within the hallowed precincts of the courts of justice and not on the streets. No one has the right to become the guardian of law claiming that he has to protect the law by any means. It is the duty of the States, as has been stated in Nandini Sundar and others v State of Chhattisgarh [2011] 7 SCC 547, to strive, incessantly and consistently, to promote fraternity amongst all citizens so that the dignity of every citizen is protected, nourished and promoted. That apart, it is the responsibility of the States to prevent untoward incidents and to prevent crime.”

                                               Furthermore, in Mohd. Haroon and others v. Union of India and another [2014] 5 SCC 252, it has been held that it is the responsibility of the State Administration in association with the intelligence agencies of both the State and the Centre to prevent recurrence of communal violence in any part of the State. If any officer responsible for maintaining law and order is found negligent, he/she should be brought within the ambit of law. No guilty officer should be spared.

                                Also, the Apex Court observed that, “There can be no shadow of doubt that the authorities which are conferred with the responsibility to maintain law and order in the States have the principal obligation to see that vigilantism, be it cow vigilantism or any other vigilantism of any perception, does not take place. When any core group with some kind of idea take the law into their own hands, it ushers in anarchy, chaos, disorder and, eventually, there is an emergence of a violent society. Vigilantism cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be given room to take shape, for it is absolutely a perverse notion. We may note here that certain applications for intervention and written notes have been filed in this regard supporting the same on the basis that there is cattle smuggling and cruel treatment to animals. In this context, suffice it to say that it is the law enforcing agencies which have to survey, prevent and prosecute. No one has the authority to enter into the said field and harbour the feeling that he is the law and the punisher himself. A country where the rule of law prevails, does not allow any such thought. It, in fact, commands for ostracisation of such thoughts with immediacy.”

           On growing mob vigilantism

                                 Truth be told, the Court made some stern and damning observations on the growing mob vigilantism and asserted that such extrajudicial attempts under the guise of protection of law would have to be nipped in the bud, “lest it would lead to rise of anarchy and lawlessness which would plague and corrode the nation like an epidemic.” It held that, “Lynching is an affront to the rule of law and to the exalted values of the Constitution itself. We may say without any fear of contradiction that lynching by unruly mobs and barbaric violence arising out of incitement and instigation cannot be allowed to become the order of the day. Such vigilantism, be it for whatever purpose or borne out of whatever cause, has the effect of undermining the legal and formal institutions of the State and altering the constitutional order.” It, therefore, highlighted the dire need for State intervention in protecting its citizens from “unruly elements and perpetrators of orchestrated lynching and vigilantism with utmost sincerity and true commitment to address and curb such incidents which must reflect in its actions and schemes”.

            Reference to American authorities

                               Be it noted, the Court also referred to rulings by the American Courts which have dealt with lynching, which at one point of time, was rampant in the American society. The Court noted that the American Courts had deplored this menace and had dealt with it with iron hands so as to eradicate the same. It then observed, “Thus, the decisions of this Court, as well as the authorities from other jurisdictions, clearly show that every citizen has to abide by the law and the law never confers the power on a citizen to become the law unto himself or take law into his hands. The idea is absolutely despicable, the thought is utterly detestable and the action is obnoxious and completely hellish. It is nauseatingly perverse.”

                     On rising intolerance

                           Truly speaking, the Bench highlighted the importance of plurality and tolerance as the building blocks of a truly free and democratic society and the need for preserving the same. It said in no uncertain terms that, “It must be emphatically stated that a dynamic contemporary constitutional democracy imbibes the essential features of accommodating pluralism in thought and approach so as to preserve cohesiveness and unity. Intolerance arising out of a dogmatic mindset sows the seeds of upheaval and has a chilling effect on freedom of thought and expression. Hence, tolerance has to be fostered and practiced and not allowed to be diluted in any manner.”

                                     Having said this, it must now be brought out here that the Apex Court then issued some guidelines to be followed. It also listed the matter on 20 August for further hearing. Those guidelines are as follows: –

A.                Preventive Measures

(i)                         The State Governments shall designate a senior police officer, not below the rank of Superintendent of Police, as Nodal Officer in each district. Such Nodal Officer shall be assisted by one of the DSP rank officers in the district for taking measure to prevent incidents of mob violence and lynching. They shall constitute a special task force so as to procure intelligence reports about the people who are likely to commit such crimes or who are involved in spreading hate speeches, provocative statements and fake news.  

(ii)                      The State Governments shall forthwith identify Districts, Sub-Divisions and/or Villages where instances of lynching and mob violence have been reported in the recent past, say, in the last five years. The process of identification should be done within a period of three weeks from the date of this judgment, as such time period is sufficient to get the task done in today’s fast world of data collection.

(iii)                   The Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall issue directives/advisories to the Nodal Officers of the concerned districts for ensuring that the Officer In-charge of the Police Stations of the identified areas are extra cautious if any instance of mob violence within their jurisdiction comes to their notice.

(iv)                   The Nodal Officer, so designated, shall hold regular meetings (at least once a month) with the local intelligence units in the district along with all Station House Officers of the district so as to identify the existence of the tendencies of vigilantism, mob violence or lynching in the district and take steps to prohibit instances of dissemination of offensive material through different social media platforms or any other means for inciting such tendencies. The Nodal Officer shall also make efforts to eradicate hostile environment against any community or caste which is targeted in such incidents.

(v)                      The Director General of Police/the Secretary, Home Department of the concerned States shall take regular review meetings (at least once a quarter) with all the Nodal Officers and State Police Intelligence heads. The Nodal Officers shall bring to the notice of the DGP any inter-district co-ordination issues for devising a strategy to tackle lynching and mob violence related issues at the State level.

(vi)                   It shall be the duty of every police officer to cause a mob to disperse, by exercising his power under Section 129 of CrPC, which , in his opinion, has a tendency to cause violence or wreak the havoc of lynching in the disguise of vigilantism or otherwise.

(vii)                The Home Department of the Government of India must take initiative and work in coordination with  the State Governments for sensitising the law enforcement agencies and by involving all the stakeholders to identify the measures for prevention of mob violence and lynching against any caste or community and to implement the constitutional goal of social justice and the Rule of Law.

(viii)             The Director General of Police shall issue a circular to the Superintendents of Police with regard to police patrolling in the sensitive areas keeping in view the incidents of the past and the intelligence obtained by the office of the Director-General. It singularly means that there should be seriousness in patrolling so that the anti-social elements involved in such crimes are discouraged and remain within the boundaries of law thus fearing to even think of taking the law into their own hands.

(ix)                   The Central and the State Governments should broadcast on radio and television and other media platforms including the official websites of the Home Department and Police of the States that lynching and mob violence of any kind shall invite serious consequence under the law.

(x)                      It shall be the duty of the Central Government as well as the State Governments to take steps to curb and stop dissemination of irresponsible and explosive messages, videos and other material on various social media platforms which have a tendency to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xi)                   The police shall cause to register FIR under Section 153A of IPC and/or other relevant provisions of law against persons who disseminate irresponsible and explosive messages and videos having content which is likely to incite mob violence and lynching of any kind.

(xii)                The Central Government shall also issue appropriate directions/advisories to the State Governments which would reflect the gravity and seriousness of the situation and the measures to be taken.

B.            Remedial measures

(i)                         Despite the preventive measures taken by the State Police, it comes to the notice of the local police that an incident of lynching or mob violence has taken place, the jurisdictional police station shall immediately cause to lodge an FIR, without any undue delay, under the relevant provisions of IPC and/or other provisions of law.

(ii)                      It shall be the duty of the Station House Officer, in whose police station such FIR is registered, to forthwith intimate the Nodal Officer in the district who shall, in turn, ensure that there is no further harassment of the family members of the victim(s).

(iii)                   Investigation in such offences shall be personally monitored by the Nodal Officer who shall be duty bound to ensure that the investigation is carried out effectively and the charge-sheet in such cases is filed within the statutory period from the date of registration of the FIR or arrest of the accused, as the case may be.

(iv)                   The State Governments shall prepare a lynching/mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month from the date of this judgment. In the said scheme for computation of compensation, the State Governments shall give due regard to the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses. The said compensation scheme must also have a provision for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence/lynching.

(v)                      The cases of lynching and mob violence shall be specifically tried by designated court/Fast Track Courts earmarked for that purpose in each district. Such courts shall hold trial of the case on a day to day basis. The trial shall preferably be concluded within six months from the date of taking cognizance. We may hasten to add that this direction shall apply to even pending cases. The District Judge shall assign those cases as far as possible to one jurisdictional court so as to ensure expeditious disposal thereof. It shall be the duty of the State Governments and the Nodal Officers, in particular, to see that the prosecuting agency strictly carries out its role in appropriate furtherance of the trial.

(vi)                   To set a stern example in cases of mob violence and lynching, upon conviction of the accused person(s), the trial court must ordinarily award maximum sentence as provided for various offences under the provisions of the IPC.

(vii)                The courts trying the cases of mob violence and lynching may, on an application by a witness or by the public prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, take such measures, as it deems fit, for protection and for concealing the identity and address of the witness.

(viii)             The victim(s) or the next kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall be given timely notice of any court proceedings and he/she shall be entitled to be heard at the trial in respect of applications such as bail, discharge, release and parole filed by the accused persons. They shall also have the right to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing.

(ix)                   The victim(s) or the next of kin of the deceased in cases of mob violence and lynching shall receive free legal aid if he or she so chooses and engage any advocate of his/her choice from amongst those enrolled in the legal aid panel under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.  

C.                   Punitive measures

(i)                         Wherever it is found that a police officer or an officer of the district administration has failed to comply with the aforesaid directions in order to prevent and/or investigate and/or facilitate expeditious trial of any crime of mob violence and lynching, the same shall be considered as an act of deliberate negligence and/or misconduct for which appropriate action must be taken against him/her and not limited to departmental action under the service rules. The departmental action shall be taken to its logical conclusion preferably within six months by the authority of the first instance.

(ii)                      In terms of the ruling of this Court in Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu (2011) 6 SCC 405, the States are directed to take disciplinary action against the concerned officials if it is found that (i) such official(s) did not prevent the incident, despite having prior knowledge of it, or (ii) where the incident has already occurred, such official(s) did not promptly apprehend and institute criminal proceedings against the culprits.

                        Simply put, the Bench directed that, “Apart from the directions we have given hereinbefore and what we have expressed, we think it appropriate to recommend to the legislature, that is, the Parliament, to create  a separate offence for lynching and provide adequate punishment for the same. We have said so as a special law in this field would instill a sense of fear amongst the people who involve themselves in such kinds of activities.” Very rightly said! Now it is up to Parliament to act and make lynching a separate offence as soon as possible as the Apex Court has directed.

                                Needless to say, it was made amply clear by the Bench that the measures that are directed to be taken have to be carried out within four weeks by the Central and the State Governments. The Bench also made it clear that, “Reports of compliance be filed within the said period before the Registry of this Court. We may emphatically note that it is axiomatic that it is the duty of the State to ensure that the machinery of law and order functions efficiently and effectively in maintaining peace so as to preserve our quintessentially secular ethos and pluralistic social fabric in a democratic set-up governed by rule of law. In times of chaos and anarchy, the State has to act positively and responsibly to safeguard and secure the constitutional promises to its citizens. The horrendous acts of mobocracy cannot be permitted to inundate the law of the land. Earnest action and concrete steps have to be taken to protect the citizens from the recurrent pattern of violence which cannot be allowed to become “the new normal”. The State cannot turn a deaf ear to the growing rumblings of its People, since its concern, to quote Woodrow Wilson, “must ring with the voices of the people.” The exigencies of the situation require us to sound a clarion call for earnest action to strengthen our inclusive and all-embracing social order which would in turn, reaffirm the constitutional faith. We expect nothing more and nothing less.”

                          All said and done, Centre must without wasting any more time further take Parliament into confidence and enact a law by which strictest punishment is provided for those who indulge in lynching. It brooks no more delay! Even Supreme Court now has stepped in and so Centre cannot afford to duck this burning issue any longer! Centre must act!

                                 No doubt, all parties must sink their petty political differences and join hands to enact a law against mob lynching so that it acts as an effective deterrent against this most reprehensible crime which is on the rise in our country since last few years! The minimum punishment should be nothing less than life term and the maximum punishment should be death penalty! Ever since Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched in UP’s Dadri in 2015 for allegedly storing and consuming beef in his house and Pehlu Khan lynched in Alwar district of Rajasthan in April 2017, there have been many similar incidents time and again but now there must be an end to it which is possible only if the strictest punishment is meted out to those who indulge in such abhorrent acts of dastardly crime! 

  

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road,

Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001,

Uttar Pradesh.

It must be stated right at the very beginning that in a landmark judgment delivered on July 10, 2018 with far reaching consequences, the Delhi High Court in Jasmeen Kaur v Union of India and others in W.P.(C) 7040/2018 while holding merit over technical grounds has opened up a closed opportunity for an aspiring medico to register for the second round of counselling for deemed universities after the due date. How can merit be defeated on technical ground? So Delhi High Court very rightly stepped in and gave the much needed relief to the petitioner which she richly deserved also!

Truth be told, the present petition has been instituted on behalf of a candidate who has secured All India 24,392nd rank in the NEET UG, 2018 examination. At the time of registration for the first round of All India Counselling, the petitioner expressed her options as ‘All India Quota’ seats, as well as ‘Central University Quota’ seats. The petitioner participated in the counseling process but could not be granted admission on account of her All India merit.

Needless to say, it is an admitted position that the second round of All India Counselling for Central and Deemed Universities has commenced on 10th of July, 2018. It is scheduled to continue till the 11th of July, 2018. It is the submission of the petitioner that on account of the circumstance that she limited her options at the time of applying online for registration, to ‘All India Quota’ and ‘Central University Quota’, she has been precluded from registering afresh for the second round of counseling under the category of ‘Deemed Universities’.

As it turned out, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 states that the portal permitting candidates to register for the second round of counseling had since been closed on the 8th of July, 2018 and the petitioner having limited her options as afore-stated in the first round, cannot be permitted to register afresh for the second round under the category of ‘Deemed Universities’ since that option had not been exercised by her earlier. It is further stated that during the process of online registration, candidates are permitted one opportunity to reset their choices and the petitioner having utilized that opportunity, cannot be permitted once again to apply for the category of ‘Deemed Universities’ as an option in the second round of counselling. On a specific query from the court, it emerges that although there are no rules or regulations that bar fresh registration to those who may have exercised limited options on an earlier occasion, the process permitting a candidate, such as the petitioner, to exercise her options at this stage would require the re-opening of the portal which would cause inconvenience and delay in the completion of the process of registration.

Truly speaking, it is very rightly pointed out in para 6 of this landmark judgment that, “It is a settled position that construction of rules or procedure which promotes justice and prevents miscarriage has to be preferred. The rules or procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress [Ref: Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. vs. Union of India, reported as (2005) 6 SCC 344]”. Furthermore, it is also rightly pointed out in para 7 of this landmark judgment that, “In view of the foregoing, it is trite to state that merit cannot be defeated on technical grounds. It is an admitted position that considering the All India rank secured by the petitioner, she may be entitled to participate successfully in the second round of counseling for admission to a medical course conducted by the Deemed Universities.”

As it turned out, Justice Siddharth Mridul directed the Centre to open up its online registration facility for the petitioner named Jasmeen Kaur who had secured all-India 24,392nd rank in NEET UG 2018 examination but could not register for second round of counseling for admission to deemed universities since at the time of online registration, she had marked her options as ‘All-India Quota’ seats as well as central university quota seats. Para 8 of this landmark judgment says that, “In this view of the matter, the only course that commends itself in the interest of justice is to direct respondent no. 1 to permit the petitioner to register afresh for the ‘Deemed Universities’ category in the second round of counselling in accordance with law.” Very rightly so!

It cannot be lost on us that the order of the court came on Tuesday i.e., July 10, just a day before the second round of counseling was to close. Following the order, the Centre opened universities. Jasmeen had participated in the first round of counselling but could not be granted admission on account of her all-India merit. The second round of counselling for central and deemed universities began on July 10 and July 11 was the last day of counselling. 

It would be pertinent to mention here that Jasmeen’s counsel Rahul Kriplani told the court that due to the options exercised by her at the time of registration, she has now been precluded from registering afresh for the second round of counselling for deemed universities and stands to suffer the loss of a precious opportunity having already dropped one year for preparation for NEET. In the petition, advocate Kriplani said that Jasmeen had secured Rank 24,392 which puts her in the 98.07 percentile of candidates. This alone explains why the Delhi High Court ruled explicitly in her favour!

Going forward, it must also be brought oput here that in para 9 of this landmark judgment, it is pointed out that, “Needless to state that, the above direction is being issued in view of the special facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the legal position that there is no bar for a meritorious student to be considered for admission to a medical course by all institutions who conduct such courses.” Absolutely right! How can a meritorious student be barred in such a whimsical and arbitrary manner?

Simply put, Jasmeen’s lawyer rightly argued that, “She then registered to participate in the first round of counseling and at that time opted for admission into ‘15% All India Quota of Government Colleges’ and ‘Central Universities’. It was understood that subsequently, the petitioner would be allowed to opt for ‘deemed universities’, if she did not secure a seat in the first round, as the website of the Medical Council Committee clearly stated that fresh registration was permissible at the time of second round of counseling.” He also rightly said that, “Having not secured any seat in the first counselling (since she had not picked ‘deemed universities’ as an option at the time of enrolling for the first round), the Petitioner sought to opt for Deemed Universities at the time of second round of counselling but was not being permitted to do so. She was not even being allowed to register afresh for Deemed Universities and make payment for the same. However, the information provided on the website of the Medical Counselling Committee, clearly stated otherwise. The last date for making payment and selection of colleges in the second round of counselling was Monday, 09.07.2018.”

As if this was not enough, he also informed that persons with a rank as low as 3,89,871 had obtained admission to MBBS in deemed universities in the first round of counselling. He also argued that there were around 3,100 seats remaining in the second round of counselling and the petitioner would be able to secure admission into an MBBS course of her choice if she is allowed the promised option of fresh registration. His point is certainly valid.

No prizes for guessing that his valid contentions were accepted by the Delhi High Court. His client Jasmeen got the much needed relief from the court. Before disposing of her writ petition apart from what has been stated above, it was also directed by the Delhi High Court in para 10 of this landmark judgment that, “It is further clarified that the option of registering afresh shall be available to the petitioner up till closing of the business hours today, subject to the respondent no. 1 making online registration facility available to the petitioner and informing her in this behalf.” Very rightly so!

All said and done, it is a landmark judgment delivered by Justice Siddharth Mridul of Delhi High Court. It minces no words in sending out a loud, clear and categorical message to all that, “Merit can’t be defeated on technical grounds”. This will certainly give an inspiration to the deserving candidates in future not to hesitate in taking recourse to legal action if they feel that their merit has been snubbed wrongly by the authorities and thus get their right by doing so! It is an excellent and exemplary judgment in which the Judge of Delhi High Court Justice Siddharth Mridul briefly and very forcefully articulates his stand and provides the much needed reprieve to Jasmeen who had petitioned Delhi High Court to get what she was legally entitled also but was being wrongly deprived of! It will not be an exaggeration to say that it is a “must read judgment”! There can be no denying or disputing it! 

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Coming straight to the key point, the Supreme Court just recently on July 6, 2018 in the landmark case of Shanti Bhushan v Supreme Court of India through its Registrar and another in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 789 of 2018 (Arising out of Diary No. 12405 of 2018) refused pointblank to declare that the function of allocating cases and assigning benches should be exercised by the collegium of five senior Judges instead of the Chief Justice of India. This was what the petitioner wanted but which he failed to get. The petition which was filed by Shanti Bhushan who is an eminent and senior advocate of Supreme Court and also is the former Union Law Minister seeking such relief in his PIL were not acted upon by the Bench of Apex Court comprising of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan.

                                           Truth be told, in the writ petition Shanti Bhushan seeks the Supreme Court to clarify the administrative authority of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) as the Master of Roster and for laying down the procedure and principles to be followed in preparing the Roster for allocation of cases as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. Shanti Bhushan had strongly contended that concentration of unbridled powers on a single person was an anathema to democracy. He, therefore, sought an end to this.

                                     As it turned out, though the petition conceded that the CJI was the master of the roster as settled by convention, it sought reforms by vesting the power of determination of roster to the collegium instead of CJI alone. The petition also stated that this power was abused in certain instances with legal malice. This abuse could be checked only by inserting the necessary reforms.

                                       At the outset, the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan expressed its welcome tone regarding the issues that were raised in the petition. The Bench stated that “matter had not been treated as adversarial in nature”. Besides, the Apex Court made it clear that it did not doubt the bona fides of the petitioner and affirmed his respectability.

                                      Going forward, the petitioner argued that the role of CJI as the ‘master of roster’ was not based on any constitutional provision. Justice AK Sikri expressly acknowledged that the Constitution is silent on the role of the Chief Justice as the ‘Master of the Roster’. However, it was added that this role was “based upon healthy practice and sound conventions which have been developed over a period of time and that stands engrafted in the Supreme Court Rules.  

                                         Simply put, the Constitution Bench decision in Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms v. Union of India & Anr (2018) 1 SCC 196 Writ Petition (Cri) No. 169 of 2017 famously known as CJAR judgment was followed by the Bench. The CJAR judgment had affirmed the powers of CJI as the master of the roster. In CJAR, the Constitution Bench applied the decision in State of Rajasthan v Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, which was rendered in the context of powers of Chief Justice of High Court. It was said in CJAR ruling that the same principle was applicable to the Supreme Court.

                                           To be sure, the Bench also extensively relied upon the decision in Asok Pande case titled Asok Pande v Supreme Court India through its Registrar and Ors., (2018) 5 SCC Scale 481. Asok Pande’s PIL, among other things, had sought a declaration that allocation of business should be done by a collegiums of three senior Judges. The CJI-led Bench of three Judges refused the prayer on two counts. Firstly, it was held that as per Supreme Court Rules, assignment of cases had to be done by CJI. The Supreme Court Rules are framed by the Supreme Court in exercise of powers under Article 145 of the Constitution. A direction cannot be issued to a rule-making authority to frame rules in a particular manner. Secondly, it re-affirmed the principle that CJI was an institution in himself and that his administrative power to allocate cases cannot be delegated to Collegium. It was held that the present Bench was bound by the decisions in CJAR and Asok Pande’s case.     

   Chief Justice cannot be substituted with the collegium

                                      It would be pertinent to mention here that the pivotal argument of the petitioner was that “Chief Justice of India” was interpreted to mean the collegiums in the Second Judges Case. The petitioner relied on this observation in the Second Judges case – “it is unwise to entrust power in any significant or sensitive area to a single individual, howsoever high or important may be the office which he is occupying. There must be checks and controls in the exercise of every power, particularly when it is a power to make important and crucial appointments and it must be exercisable by plurality of hands rather than be vested in a single individual. Therefore, extrapolation of that principle was sought with regard to CJI’s powers as the administrative head.

                               To state the obvious, the argument was not accepted holding that the Second Judge case was rendered in the context of power exercised by CJI under Article 124 for the appointment of judges. It was held that the power to allocate business was altogether different, as it is an administrative function flowing from Article 145 of the Constitution. This kind of system which is devised for the appointment of Judges cannot be replicated when it comes to the role of the Chief Justice as Master of Roster. We have to keep in mind that the Chief Justice, as the head of the Supreme Court of India, and the Chief Justices of the High Courts, have to perform many other functions, on the administrative sides in their capacities as Chief Justices. Framing of the Roster and constituting the Benches is one among them. In case the expression ‘Chief Justice’ is to be interpreted as ‘Collegium’, it would be difficult to have smooth day to day functioning of the Supreme Court, or for that matter the High Courts, observed the judgment in that regard.

                 Practical hardships

                                 It cannot be lost on us that Justice Ashok Bhushan’s judgment had discussed the rationale behind having a system of CJI allocating cases. Referring to State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Neeraj Chaubey and Others, (2010) 10 SCC 320, it was observed that “in event the distribution is not done by the Chief Justice of India, it may generate internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case”. “If the Judges were free to choose their jurisdiction or any choice was given to them to do whatever case they may like to hear and decide, the machinery of the Court would collapse and the judicial work of the Court would cease by generation of internal strife on account of hankering for a particular jurisdiction or a particular case” – this observation in Neeraj Chaubey’s case was extracted in Justice Bhushan’s judgment.   

                                    Truly speaking, both the Judges – AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan accepted the submission of Attorney General KK Venugopal that allocation of business by collegiums will affect the day to day functioning of the Court. When it comes to assigning the cases to a particular Bench, it has to be undertaken by the Chief Justice on daily basis in contrast with the meetings of the Collegium for the purpose of appointment of Judges, which is infrequent. Thus, meeting of Collegium for the purpose of assigning the cases to a particular Bench on daily basis is clearly impracticable, Justice AK Sikri observed in that regard. However, both the Judges held that the listing of cases should be strictly in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules, and to that extent they agreed with the petitioner.

 Judicial Reforms the Moral Responsibility of Chief Justice

                                      To say the least, the judgment of Justice Sikri elaborated on the role of Chief Justice of India. It was stated that the Chief Justice of India was “first amongst the equals” when it comes to his judicial functions, implying that his opinion does not carry any added weightage over his colleagues. Also, when a case is allotted to a bench, that bench will have complete dominion over the case, without having to act as per the directives of any external judges. Further, Chief Justice of India carries the “leadership of the Court” acting as the spokesperson and representative of the judiciary in its dealings with the Executive, Government and the Community. For this purpose, the ‘Chief Justice’ has a general responsibility to ensure that the Court promotes change and reform as appropriate. The judicial reforms, which is a continuing process in order to ensure that there is real access to justice, also becomes the moral responsibility of the ‘Chief Justice’.

                             Judicial Qualities

                              Be it noted, both the Judges commented on the qualities to be possessed by a Judge. According to Justice Sikri those are wisdom, patience, a sense of practical reality, fairness and balance, independence of mind and knowledge of the law, moral courage or fortitude, and a total commitment that justice should be administered according to law. Justice Ashok Bhushan quoted the words of former CJI Venkatachaliah that the life of a Judge does not really call for great acts of self-sacrifice; but it does insist upon small acts of self-denial almost every day, and added that only the inner strength of Judges can ensure judicial independence. Finally, Justice Sikri signed off his judgment with the following quote from Edmund Burke – “Applaud us when we run; console us when we fall; cheer us when we recover; but let us pass on – for God’s sake, let us pass on”. No doubt, this is quite apt for the times which the Supreme Court of India currently finds itself in.

                         International Practices

                            It would be imperative to mention here what para 38 of this landmark judgment says. Para 38 says that, “Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied on various international practices. During the submission he has referred to practices pertaining to case assignment in United Kingdom Supreme Court, High Court of Australia, Supreme Court of Canada and the practice in United States Supreme Court. The practices and function of each Court are different which has been evolved by time looking to particular background and set of facts. The practice of a Court ripens into a convention by passage of time and rich heritage of conventions are time tested which practice and conventions of this Court have ripened with time which need not be tinkered with or imitated from different international practices of different Courts. As noted above, the law laid down by this Court is that: the power of framing roster which inheres in the Chief Justice has constitutional and statutory backing and by convention it is treated as prerogative of the Chief Justice. We, thus, cannot import the international practices in the constitutional and statutory scheme of this Court.”

Transparency in allocation of cases and formulation of Benches 

                                  The learned counsel for the petitioner laid much emphasis that the procedure and manner of allocation of cases and formulation of Benches should be one which is accessible to public and there should be objective criteria of exercise of the power by the Chief Justice. It was also submitted that the manner and procedure for exercising the power should be put in public domain to allay any kind of misapprehension and to instill confidence in public in general. To this, the Apex Court Bench responded by pointing out that, “We have already noticed above that the manner and procedure for transaction of Court work is elaborately dealt with Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

                                       Furthermore, in para 40 of this landmark judgment, it was pointed out that, “Further, handbook on practice and procedure and office procedure also laid down sufficient guidelines and elaboration of the procedure which is to be followed in this Court. Thus, for transaction of business of the Court, there are elaborate rules and procedure and it cannot be said that procedure and practice of the Court is unguided and without any criteria.” Para 41 further goes on to say that, “We are, however, not unconscious of the fact that working of any system is a continuous process and each and every organisation endeavours to improve the working of its system suitable to circumstances and the need. Improvement of functioning is always a goal of every system and all organizations endeavour to improve the system, which is always a welcome step. The Supreme Court cannot be an exception to above objective and goal.” The Bench thus welcomed ways to improve the functioning of the system.        

                                          All said and done, this landmark judgment makes it abundantly clear that it is the Chief Justice of India who is the Master of the Roster. Justice Ashok Bhushan in para 16 of this landmark judgment sought to make the picture on this more clear by pointing out that, “This Court has recorded its conclusion in Para 59, which is to the following effect:-

          “59. From the preceding discussion the following broad CONCLUSIONS emerge. This, of course, is not to be treated as a summary of our judgment and the conclusions should be read with the text of the judgment:

(1)         That the administrative control of the High Court vests in the Chief Justice alone. On the judicial side, however, he is only the first amongst the equals.

(2)         That the Chief Justice is the master of the roster. He alone has the prerogative to constitute benches of the court and allocate cases to the benches so constituted.

(3)         That the puisne judges can only do that work as is allotted to them by the Chief Justice or under his directions.

(4)         That till any determination made by the Chief Justice lasts, no judge who is to sit singly can sit in a Division Bench and no Division Bench can be split up by the judges constituting the bench themselves and one or both the judges constituting the one or both the judges constituting such bench sit singly and take up any other kind of judicial business not otherwise assigned to them by or under the directions of the Chief Justice.

(5)         That the Chief Justice can take cognizance of an application laid before him under Rule 55 (supra) and refer a case to the larger bench for its disposal and he can exercise this jurisdiction even in relation to a part heard case.

(6)         That the puisne judges cannot “pick and choose” any case pending in the High Court and assign the same to himself or themselves for disposal without appropriate orders of the Chief Justice.

(7)         That no judge or judges can give directions to the Registry for listing any case before him or them which runs counter to the directions given by the Chief Justice.

                             Having said this, it must also be pointed here that Para 17 further reveals about Supreme Court rulings that, “There are series of judgments reiterating the same view as expressed by this Court in State of Rajasthan (supra). In an earlier judgment, Union of India and Another Vs Raghubir Singh (Dead) By LRs. Etc., (1984) 2 SCC 754, a Constitution Bench of this Court noticed that as a general rule of practice and convenience, the Court should sit in Divisions and each Division being constituted of judges whose number may be determined by the exigencies of judicial need, by the nature of the case including any statutory mandate relative thereto, and by such other considerations which the Chief Justice, in whom such authority devolves by convention.” Further, in para 18 of this landmark judgment, it is pointed out that in D.C. Saxena Vs Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, (1996) 5 SCC 216, this Supreme Court made it amply clear that it is the Chief Justice’s prerogative to constitute benches and assign the judicial work and the judicial business would not hinge on the whim of a litigant.

                               Thus we see that the Apex Court Bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice AK Sikri leaves no room of doubt that it is the Chief Justice who is the master of the roster and decides the allocation of cases and not the 5 seniormost Judges of the Supreme Court as was sought by the petitioner! It was also brought out by Justice AK Sikri in Para 12 of this landmark judgment that, “There is no dispute, as mentioned above, that ‘Chief Justice’ is the Master of Roster and has the authority to allocate the cases to different Benches/Judges of the Supreme Court. The petitioner has been candid in conceding to this legal position. He himself has gone to the extent of stating in the petition that this principle that ‘Chief Justice’ is the Master of Roster is essential to maintain judicial discipline and decorum and also for the proper and efficient functioning of the Court.” Very rightly said! There can be no denying or disputing it!

                                   But it was also made amply clear in this landmark judgment by Justice AK Sikri in Para 24 that, “The power of the ‘Chief Justice’ does not extend to regulate the functioning of a particular Bench to decide cases assigned to him once the cases are allocated to that Bench. A Bench comprising of puisne Judges exercise its judicial functions without interference from others, including the ‘Chief Justice’, as it is supposed to act according to law. Therefore, when a particular matter is assigned to a particular Bench, that Bench acquires the complete dominion over the case.” It also mentioned the relevant rules in this regard as pointed above! In conclusion, this landmark judgment sets to rest all the key questions that were raised so brilliantly by eminent and senior Supreme Court lawyer Shanti Bhushan by filing the PIL which ultimately led to the culmination of this landmark judgment!    

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,

s/o Col BPS Sirohi,

A 82, Defence Enclave,

Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera,

Meerut – 250001, Uttar Pradesh.