http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2

CASE NO.:

Appeal (crl.) 535 of 2000

PETITIONER:

P. RAMACHANDRA RAO, ETC. ETC.APPELLANTS

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

STATE OF KARNATAKA RESPONDENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2002

BENCH:

Doraiswamy Raju

JUDGMENT:

WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.536 TO 542 OF 2000

J U D G M E N T

RAJU, J.

I have had the privilege of going through the judgment of esteemed and

learned brother R.C. Lahoti, J., while I am in respectful agreement that the

appeals are to be allowed and remitted to the High Court to be heard and

decided afresh, I feel compelled to express my reservation and inability to

subscribe to some of the observations contained therein relating to the powers

and jurisdiction of this Court.

The declaration of law made by the Constitution Bench of five learned

Judges of this Court in the decision reported in A.R. Antulay's case [(1992)1

SCC 225] still holds the field and its binding force and authority has not been

undermined or whittled down or altered in any manner by an other decision of a

larger Bench. Consequently, the Benches of lesser number of Constitution of

Judges which dealt with the cases reported in "Common Cause" A Regd.

Society through its Director Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1996)4 SCC 33];

"Common Cause" A Regd. Society through its Director Vs. Union of India &

Ors. [(1996)6 SCC 775]; Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar [(1998)7 SCC 507]

and Raj Deo Sharma (II) Vs. State of Bihar [(1999)7 SCC 604] could not have

laid down any principles in derogation of the ratio laid down in A.R.Antulay's

case (supra) either by way of elaboration, expansion, clarification or in the

process of trying to distinguish the same with reference to either the nature of

causes considered therein or the consequences which are likely to follow and

which, in their view, deserve to be averted. Even where necessities or

justification, if any, were found therefor, there could not have been scope for

such liberties being taken to transgress the doctrine of binding precedents, which

has come to stay firmly in our method of Administration of Justice and what is

permissible even under such circumstances being only to have had the matter

referred to for reconsideration by a larger Bench of this Court and not to deviate

by no other means. This solitary reason would suffice by itself to overrule the

above decisions, the correctness of which stand referred to for consideration by

this Bench. All the more so when, there is no reason to doubt the correctness of

the decision in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) and this Bench concurs with the

principles laid down therein.

Though this Court does not consider itself to be an Imperium in Imperio or

would function as a despotic branch of `The State', the fact that the founding

fathers of our Constitution designedly and deliberately, perhaps, did not envisage

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2

the imposition of any jurisdictional embargo on this Court, except in Article 363 of

the Constitution of India is significant and sufficient enough, in my view, to

identify the depth and width or extent of its powers. The other fetters devised or

perceived on its exercise of powers or jurisdiction to entertain/deal with a matter

were merely self-imposed for one or the other reason assigned therefor and they

could not stand in the way of or deter this Court in any manner from rising up to

respond in a given situation as and when necessitated and effectively play its

role in accommodating the Constitution to changing circumstances and enduring

values as a `Sentinel on the qui vive' to preserve and safeguard the Constitution,

protect and enforce the fundamental rights and other constitutional mandates

which constitute the inviolable rights of the people as well as those features,

which formed its basic structure too and considered to be even beyond the reach

of any subsequent constitutional amendment. In substance, this Court, in my

view, is the ultimate repository of all judicial powers at National level by virtue of it

being the Summit Court at the pyramidal height of Administration of Justice in the

country and as the upholder and final interpreter of the Constitution of India and

defender of the fundamentals of `Rule of Law'.

It is not only difficult but impossible to foresee and enumerate all possible

situations arising, to provide in advance solutions with any hard and fast rules of

universal application for all times to come. It is well known that where there is

right, there should be a remedy. In what exceptional cases, not normally

visualized or anticipated by law, what type of an extra-ordinary remedy must be

devised or designed to solve the issue arising would invariably depend upon the

gravity of the situation, nature of violation and efficacy as well as utility of the

existing machinery and the imperative need or necessity to find a solution even

outside the ordinary framework or avenue of remedies to avert any resultant

damage beyond repair or redemption, to any person. Apparently, in my view,

alive to such possibilities only even this Court in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) has

chosen to decline the request for fixation of any period of time limit for trial of

offences not on any total want or lack of jurisdiction in this Court, but for the

reason that it is "neither advisable nor practicable" to fix any such time limit and

that the non-fixation does not ineffectuate the guarantee of right to speedy trial.

The prospects and scope to achieve the desired object of a speedy trial even

within the available procedural safeguards and avenues provided for obtaining

relief, have also been indicated in the said decision as well as in the judgment

prepared by learned brother R.C. Lahoti, J. I am of the firm opinion that this

Court should never venture to disown its own jurisdiction on any area or in

respect of any matter or over any one authority or person, when the Constitution

is found to be at stake and the Fundamental Rights of citizens/persons are under

fire, to restore them to their position and uphold the Constitution and the Rule of

Law for which this Court has been established and constituted with due

primacy and necessary powers authority and jurisdiction, both express and

implied.

Except dissociating myself from certain observations made expressing

doubts about the jurisdiction of this Court, for the reasons stated above, I am in

entire agreement with the other reasons and conclusions in the judgment.

J.

[Doraiswamy Raju]

April 16, 2002.