oppn parties Supreme Court: Constitutional Courts Cannot Seek Explanations From Trial Courts For Orders Issued By Them

News Snippets

  • 2nd ODI: Rohit Sharma roars back to form with a scintillating ton as India beat England by 4 wickets in a high scoring match in Cuttack
  • Supreme Court will appoint an observer for the mayoral poll in Chandigarh
  • Government makes it compulsory for plastic carry bag makers to put a QR or barcode with their details on such bags
  • GBS outbreak in Pune leaves 73 ill with 14 on ventilator. GBS is a rare but treatable autoimmune disease
  • Madhya Pradesh government banned sale and consumption of liquor at 19 religious sites including Ujjain and Chitrakoot
  • Odisha emerges at the top in the fiscal health report of states while Haryana is at the bottom
  • JSW Steel net profit takes a massive hit of 70% in Q3
  • Tatas buy 60% stake in Pegatron, the contractor making iPhone's in India
  • Stocks return to negative zone - Sensex sheds 329 points to 76190 and Nifty loses 113 points to 23092
  • Bumrah, Jadeja and Yashasvi Jaiswal make the ICC Test team of the year even as no Indian found a place in the ODI squad
  • India take on England in the second T20 today at Chennai. They lead the 5-match series 1-0
  • Ravindra Jadeja excels in Ranji Trophy, takes 12 wickets in the match as Saurashtra beat Delhi by 10 wickets. All other Team India stars disappoint in the national tournament
  • Madhya Pradesh HC says collectors must not apply NSA "under political pressure and without application of mind"
  • Oxfam charged by CBI over violation of FCRA
  • Indian students in the US have started quitting part-time jobs (which are not legally allowed as per visa rules) over fears of deportation
Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh resigns after meeting Home Minister Amit Shah and BJP chief J P Nadda /////// President's Rule likely in Manipur
oppn parties
Supreme Court: Constitutional Courts Cannot Seek Explanations From Trial Courts For Orders Issued By Them

By Sunil Garodia
First publised on 2023-04-07 05:42:43

About the Author

Sunil Garodia Editor-in-Chief of indiacommentary.com. Current Affairs analyst and political commentator.

The Supreme Court has rightly quashed a Madhya Pradesh HC order that issued a notice to the trial court judge to explain why he had granted bail to a person accused of stripping a man and tying him to a tree before assaulting him. The court said that the trial judge was correct in granting bail as the accused had been in jail for 4 months, the charge sheet had been filed and other accused had been granted bail. The Supreme Court said that "the order of the trial court granting bail to the accused was fair and reasonable. The high court cancelled the bail applying wrong principles of law".

The court was of the opinion that constitutional courts asking for explanation from lower courts for their orders would have a "chilling effect" on the lower judiciary. The bench of CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justice J B Padriwala said that if HC judges sought explanations from district judicial officers it will have an adverse effect of the independence of the district judiciary.

Every judge is entitled to have his or her own interpretation of law. That is why we have a hierarchical judiciary and dissenting judgements in constitutional courts. If a trial court judge interprets the law in a manner that is found wrong by the High Court, it can reverse the judgment but should not seek an explanation from the trial court. In the instant case, even the Supreme Court reversed the high court judgment saying wrong principles of law were applied but it did not seek an explanation from the judge as to why he did it.

The Supreme Court rightly said that the High Court's "decision to seek explanation from the trial court was unwarranted. Such orders from the HC produce a chilling effect on the district judicial officer. They cannot be put in fear of giving explanation to high courts while exercising their powers and discretion to grant bail in criminal cases to accused." Constitutional courts should respect the mandate granted to trial courts and should refrain from acting as school masters.