Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs Mr. K.Parasaran and Ors on 13 Aug 1996

Posted on January 17, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held as follows towards end of the judgment,

The course adopted by the applicant is impermissible and his application is based on misconception of law and facts. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. After giving our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar as well as those contained in the memorandum of the application, we are of the opinion that this application is misconceived, untenable and has no merits whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed.

Citations : [1996 SUPREME 6 120], [1996 AIR SC 2687], [1996 SCC 5 530], [1997 BOMCR SC 2 150], [1996 CRLJ SC 3983], [1996 CRIMES SC 3 143], [1996 SCC CRI 1038], [1996 SCALE 5 797], [1996 AD SC 6 133], [1997 ALD CRI 1 134], [1997 ALT CRI 1 271], [1997 LW CRL 1 164], [1997 RCR CRIMINAL 3 62], [1996 SUPP SCR 4 574], [1996 JT SC 7 265]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/455188/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ace6e4b014971141001a

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Dr-Buddhi-Kota-Subbarao-Versus-Mr-K-Parasaran-and-Others-1996-08-13

Index of Perjury Judgments is here.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Posted on December 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Earlier, this Court had issued notice to the petitioner himself to show cause that in case it was a fake institution, what was the reason or rationale for the petitioner to join the same and to continue to serve there for one year. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that such pleadings be ignored and may not be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition. We do not see any reason to allow a party to make a pleading in the petition and then make a submission to the court to ignore it as such an issue has no bearing on the merits of the case being totally irrelevant. Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of the parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings, he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by the court but can also be tried for perjury. In case, the pleading taken by the petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same. In case, it is false and as such statement had been made on oath, he is liable to be tried for perjury. More so, whether such a pleading is relevant or not is a matter to be decided by the court and under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

From Para 5,

Be that as it may, this Court had insisted at the time of first round of hearing of this case that AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra should remain present in the Court at the time of arguments and also passed over the matter for his appearance. In the second round, it was informed to us that the AOR refused to come to the court. We take a very serious note of the conduct of this AOR, particularly, in view of the judgment of this Court In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, (2014) 1 SCC 572, wherein this Court has categorically held that in case the AOR does not appear in the court, his conduct may tantamount to criminal contempt of the court. In fact, a very few AsOR have spoiled the working system of the institution of AsOR who simply lend their signatures for petty amount. The AOR involved herein is living in a fool’s paradise if he thinks that he can play hide and seek with any court of law.
In such a chaotic situation, any “Arzi”, “Farzi”, half- baked lawyer under the label of “proxy counsel”, a phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 etc., cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process of the court under a false impression that he has a right to waste public time without any authority to appear in the court, either from the litigant or from the AOR, as in the instant case. The AOR, with impunity was disdainful towards the order of this Court directing him to appear in the court. He had also not filed any appearance for the counsel who had appeared, nor the said counsel disclosed his name. The Court takes serious note of the conduct of the AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra and warns him to behave in an appropriate manner befitting the conduct of an advocate and an AOR otherwise this Court will not hesitate to take action against him. His conduct will be under close watch of this Court.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Citations : [2014 ALLCC 84 1002], [2014 ALT CRL AP 2 242], [2014 CCR SC 2 37], [2014 COMPLJ SC 3 197], [2014 RCR CIVIL 2 285], [2014 SCALE 1 751], [2014 SCC 9 230], [2014 SCJ 4 412], [2014 SCR 1 848], [2014 UC 1 516], [2014 SCC CRI 5 21], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 67], [2014 AIOL 52], [2014 SCV 1 397], [2014 SLT 3 298], [2014 RAJ 2 401], [2014 AICLR 1 991], [2014 ALLINDCAS 135 270], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 711]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199130163/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416146

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sanjay-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-5665

State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 01 Apr 2003

Posted on December 16, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows:

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. This argument found favour with the High Court. The High Court has relied on judgments of various High Courts which have held that Section 273 is mandatory and that evidence must be recorded in the presence of the accused. To this extant no fault can be found with the Judgment of the High Court. The High Court has then considered what Courts in foreign countries, including Courts in USA, have done. The High Court then based its decision on the meaning of the term “presence” in various dictionaries and held that the term “presence” in Section 273 means actual physical presence in Court. We are unable to agree with this. We have to consider whether evidence can be led by way of video-conferencing on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, what view has been taken by Courts in other countries is irrelevant. However, it may only be mentioned that the Supreme Court of USA, in the case of Maryland vs. Santra Aun Craig [497 US 836], has held that recording of evidence by video-conferencing was not a violation of the Sixth Amendment (Confrontation Clause).
12. Considering the question on the basis of Criminal Procedure Code, we are of the view that the High Court has failed to read Section 273 properly. One does not have to consider dictionary meanings when a plain reading of the provision brings out what was intended.

From Para 19 (Important),

Recording of evidence by video conferencing also satisfies the object of providing, in Section 273, that evidence be recorded in the presence of the Accused. The Accused and his pleader can see the witness as clearly as if the witness was actually sitting before them. In fact the Accused may be able to see the witness better than he may have been able to if he was sitting in the dock in a crowded Court room. They can observe his or her demeanour. In fact the facility to play back would enable better observation of demeanour. They can hear and rehear the deposition of the witness. The Accused would be able to instruct his pleader immediately and thus cross- examination of the witness is as effective, if not better. The facility of play back would give an added advantage whilst cross-examining the witness. The witness can be confronted with documents or other material or statement in the same manner as if he/she was in Court. All these objects would be fully met when evidence is recorded by video conferencing. Thus no prejudice, of whatsoever nature, is caused to the Accused. Of course, as set out hereinafter, evidence by video conferencing has to be on some conditions.

State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 01 Apr 2003

Citations : [2003 SCALE 3 554], [2003 SCC 4 601], [2003 SCR 3 244], [2003 AIR SC 2053], [2003 AIR SC 1885], [2003 CRIMES SC 2 237], [2003 CRLJ SC 2033], [2003 SCC CRI 815], [2003 MHLJ SC 2 868], [2003 MPLJ SC 2 434], [2003 SUPREME 3 19], [2003 BOMCR CRI SC 1495], [2003 ALT CRI 2 118], [2003 RD 95 158], [2003 CTC 2 787], [2004 UD 2 60], [2003 UC 2 1011], [2003 ACR SC 2 1269], [2003 ALD CRI 1 848], [2003 ALR 51 436], [2003 CGLJ 2 86], [2003 UJ 2 769], [2003 RLW SC 2 268], [2003 GLH 2 447], [2003 RCR CRIMINAL 2 770], [2003 AIR SCW 1885], [2003 JT SC 3 382]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/560467/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade4e4b0149711412786

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

Posted on October 21, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court passed guidelines while disposing the appearance of the petitioners u/s 205 CrPC.

7. Consequentially, we quash the order of the High Court dated 3.10.1996. However, we hasten to add that this order of ours is passed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to move the trial court for discharge. We are disposed to afford some more reliefs to the respondents. We notice that among the respondent some of them are ladies. So, if any of the respondents would apply before the trial court for exempting them from personal appearance the trial court shall exempt them from personal appearance on the following conditions:
1. He or she would not dispute his or her identity as the particular accused mentioned in the charge sheet.
2. A counsel on their behalf would be present in the court whenever the case is taken up.
3. They would be present in the court on the date when such presence becomes imperatively needed.

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (IK Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (CM Ver)

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000 (LD Ver)

R Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry on 09 Aug 2000 (CK Ver)

Citations: [2000 ACR SC 3 2522], [2000 JT SC 10 479], [2002 SCC 10 401], [2001 AIR SC 0 2308], [2001 AIR SCW 2308]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1021734/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad69e4b014971141155c

https://legaldata.in/court/read/803964

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/301443-r-annapurna-vs-ramadugu-anantha

Index here.

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 10 Feb 2023

Posted on September 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A constitution bench of Apex Court decided the fate of AIBE exam (SLP(C)No.22337/2008)…

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 20 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-27

Here is the causelist for 27 Sep 2022 and 28 Sep 2022

2022-09-27 Court-3 Constitution Bench

And here is the Order passed on 27-Sep-2022, saying Part-Heard.

2022-09-27 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 27 Sep 2022

2022-Sep-28

Arguments heard. Hearing Concluded. Judgment reserved.

2022-09-28 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 28 Sep 2022

2023-Feb-10

After around 3 months, the pronouncement of the judgment happened today. The highlights from the judgment are:

From Para 14,

d. Currently, any person who is provisionally enrolled is allowed to practice for two years, but is allowed to take the All India Bar Examination not just for those two years but for any number of times till he passes the All India Bar Examination. The date of reckoning seniority of the candidate is from the date of the provisional enrolment. However, it was submitted that unlimited number of attempts would not be in line with the scheme proposed by this Court and must be limited to any number that this Court deems fit.

From Para 30,

30. We are unable to agree with the reasoning in V. Sudeer24 that because the State Bar Councils’ power for providing training or for holding examination was taken away by the 1973 Amendment, it ipso facto amounts to taking away such powers if they so vested with the Bar Council of India.The legislative object was clear i.e. not to confer such powers on the State Bar Councils. However, that could not affect the position of the power of the Bar Council of India, and naturally such a power existed. If the Bar Council of India never had such a power, then the same could not be read by implication. But, if the Bar Council of India had sufficient powers, then the 1973 Amendment would not take away those powers of the Bar Council of India as the said amendment did not deal with the aspect of the powers of the Bar Council of India.

From Para 31,

31. In addition, the learned Judges in V. Sudeer25 opined that if such a power has to be conferred, it should be conferred legislatively. While in principle, there can be no disagreement with the broad proposition, the issue is whether such a power is already existing with the Bar Council of India
under the statutory provisions. The functions of the Bar Council of India, as specified under Section 7, inter alia prescribe an exercise of general supervision and control over the State Bar Councils under Clause (g) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 7. Further, under Sub-Clause (l), the Bar Council of India has the power to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under the said Act and under Clause (m) to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. The powers are, thus, wide and extensive as conferred by the legislature. Thus, when under Section 24(1), the Bar Council of India has the statutory power of prescribing Rules subject to which a person may be treated as qualified to be admitted as an Advocate in the State roll, then we believe that the Bar Council of India is not devoid of its jurisdiction in undertaking a pre-enrolment training course or examination prescribed by the Bar Council of India.

From Para 32,

32. In case of any subsisting doubt, we must refer to Section 49(1)(ag) of the said Act, which while dealing with the general powers of the Bar Council of India to make rules, specifically stipulates that the class or category of person entitled to be enrolled as advocates, is an aspect for which all powers have been conferred on the Bar Council of India. Thus, the provision for an examination for enrolment of advocates by the Bar Council of India can hardly be doubted. We had specified at the inception itself that quality control of entry into the Bar is the need of the hour.

From Paras 33 and 35,

33. The objective of the legislature while giving wide powers to the Bar Council of India under Section 49, which gives it the powers to make Rules, read with Section 24(3)(d), which gives it the powers to prescribe the norms for entitlement to be enrolled as an Advocate under the Rules of the Bar Council of India, leads us to the conclusion that these are adequate powers with the Bar Council of India under the said Act to provide such norms and Rules.
34. We are, thus, of the view that while considering the questions referred to us, the only conclusion which can be laid is that the interdict placed by the judgment of this Court in V. Sudeer26 on the powers of the Bar Council of India cannot be sustained and we cannot hold that V. Sudeer27 lays down the correct position of law.

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 10 Feb 2023 (FULL)

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Posted on September 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding a query, whether a PoA Holder can file a complaint u/s 200 CrPC in a NI Act case.

From Para 26,

26) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

Citations: [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 44], [2013 SCALE 11 360], [2013 KERLT 4 21], [2014 AIR SC 630], [2014 CALLT SC 1 53], [2014 PLJR 1 216], [2013 OLR 2 884], [2013 BC 4 212], [2013 CTC 5 560], [2014 SCC 11 790], [2013 CLA SC 117 4], [2013 COMPCAS SC 180 258], [2014 AKR 1 314], [2013 KLJ 4 279], [2014 LW 1 698], [2013 PLR 4 733], [2013 NCC 2 854], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 649], [2013 KHC 3 885], [2013 WLN SC 4 25], [2013 ALLCC 83 583], [2014 LW CRL 1 154], [2014 SCC CIV 4 343], [2013 SUPREME 6 705], [2014 CRLJ SC 576], [2013 AIOL 611], [2013 JT 12 524], [2013 SLT 8 133], [2014 DCR SC 1 135], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 839], [2013 AIC 131 160], [2014 ECRN 1 486], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 307], [2013 JCC NI SC 4 214], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 382], [2014 JLJR SC 1 48], [2013 BOMCR SC 6 424], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 306], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4048], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 213]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47858029/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ae4b0149711415b31

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/a-c-narayanan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-4779

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019

Posted on July 28, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A constitution bench of Apex Court held as follows:

From Para 59,

59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of
medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive.

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019 Para 59

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1459]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/101637927/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5dcc51443321bc4f5eaf25b5

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Posted on July 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. (See: State of U.P. vs. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; Harbanslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn.
Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499).
16. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207; Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.
(See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72).

From Para 19,

19. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Citations : [2013 AD SC 8 620], [2013 CTR SC 261 113], [2013 ITR SC 357], [2013 JLJR 4 35], [2013 JT SC 11 387], [2013 PLJR 4 179], [2013 SCALE 10 326], [2014 SCC 1 603], [2013 TAXMAN SC 217 143], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 717], [2013 TAXMANNCOM SC 36]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51987756/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ce4b0149711415ba2

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

Posted on July 23, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from a division bench of the Apex Court.

From Paras 14 and 15,

14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose”.
15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case- law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998 (CM Ver)

Citations : [1998 SCC 8 1], [1999 AIR SC 22], [1998 AIR SC 3345], [1999 BOMCR SC 2 70], [1998 JT 7 243], [1998 SCALE 5 655], [1998 SUPREME 8 176], [1998 AIR SCW 3345]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd361607dba63d7e6e044

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015

Posted on July 17, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows regarding the language of a High Court.

From Paras 13, 14 and 15,

13. Before we further proceed to examine the aspects of competency to assist the Court, we need to first consider on the aspect of language of the High Court. Article 343 of the Constitution of India provides for official language of the Union. Whereas, Article 348 of the Constitution of India provides for languages of Supreme Court and High Court, etc. It is hardly required to be stated that before the constitution was framed, there were constitutional debates and deliberation on various points including about language to be used in Supreme Court and High Courts. After deliberations constitutional framers have finalised Article 348 of the Constitution. The aforesaid shows that until the Parliament by law otherwise provides, all proceedings in the Supreme Court and every High Court shall be in English. Sub-Article (2) provides that the Governor of the State may with the previous consent of the President Authorise the use of Hindi language or any other language in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that State. But such would not be applicable to any judgment decree or order passed or made by such High Court.
14. The Parliament has enacted the Official Language Act, 1963 for providing languages to be used for official purpose of Union for transaction of business in Parliament under Central and State Act and also for certain purposes in the High Courts. The aforesaid shows that the President may authorise the use of Hindi or official language of the State in addition to English language for the purpose of any judgement decree or order passed or made by the High Court, but such shall be accompanied by a translation of the same in English language.
15. The aforesaid are the enabling powers, but so far as High Court of Gujarat is concerned, the learned Advocate General after verification, made a clear statement that no such order has been passed by the Governor under Article 348 (2) of the Constitution nor any order for authorisation has been passed by the President for use of Gujarati language or any other language and he further submitted that English language is already prescribed in the proceedings of the High Court and Supreme Court by Article 348 (1) of the Constitution. To say in other words, in absence of any order of the Governor under Article 348(2) of the Constitution or in absence of any authorisation under Section 7 of the Official Language Act, the language of the High Court of Gujarat as per the Constitution of India has to be English since the word used by the Constitution is “Shall be in English language”. Hence, it can be said that the language of the High Court of Gujarat shall be English unless any authorisation has been issued under Article 348(2) of the Constitution of India or under section 7 of the Official Language Act by the Governor or the President, as the case may be.

From Para 18,

18. It is hardly required to be stated that the Constitution or any provision of the Constitution will prevail over any Act or the law made by the Parliament or the Rules made by any Rule making authority. If Rule 37 is to be given effect read with the above referred constitutional provision, it would mean the memorandum of proceedings by a party may be submitted in Gujarati or in English, but if it is in Gujarati, the party may be asked to supply English translation also and if there has no financial capacity to provide English translation, Court may direct the English translation to be made by the High Court and thereafter, the matter may be considered further. If Rule 37 of the Rules is not interpreted in that manner, it would run counter to Article 348 of the Constitution.

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178909148/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e38c4a93261a1a76788f/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs Mr. K.Parasaran and Ors on 13 Aug 1996

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 01 Apr 2003

R.Annapurna Vs Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and Ors on 09 Aug 2000

Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 10 Feb 2023

A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 2013

CPIO SCI Vs Subhash Chandra Agarwal on 13 Nov 2019

Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors Vs Chhabil Dass Agarwal on 8 Aug 2013

Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai and Ors on 26 Oct 1998

Manish Kanaiyalal Gupta Vs State of Gujarat on 08 Jul 2015