'Don't Eat Up Court's Time To Show Off Skills' : Supreme Court Cautions Lawyers For Arguing Against Settled Precedents

The Supreme Court on Thursday (April 9) cautioned lawyers against consuming the Court's valuable time by arguing cases that contradict settled legal positions solely to showcase their argumentative skills.

“As the courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available. Merely for the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.”, observed a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice NV Anjaria.

The aforesaid observation came in a matter where the core legal issue revolved around the relevant date for computation of the limitation period for taking cognizance in a criminal case under Section 468 Cr.P.C., i.e., whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance.

The High Court had quashed the complaint against the Respondent No.1, noting that the cognizance of the offence under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC was taken by the magistrate beyond the period of one year. The High Court said that the relevant date for deciding the bar of limitation was the date of taking cognizance by the Court, and since the cognizance was taken beyond the period of one year, the proceedings were quashed.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision, the complainant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's order to be bad in law, as it ignored the binding constitution bench precedent of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62, which held that the relevant date for reckoning the limitation would be the date on which the criminal complaint was filed.

Opposing the appellant's contention, Respondent No. 1 offered a divergent interpretation of the Sarah Mathew case, attempting to draw an artificial distinction regarding the limitation period. The respondent argued for a different reckoning based on whether the proceedings originated from the filing of an FIR or the institution of a private complaint, specifically as it relates to the date of taking cognizance.

Rejecting such a distinction, the judgment authored by Justice Anjaria observed that when the constitution bench dictum had clearly laid down the law regarding the computation of limitation, then it was improper and unjustifiable for the Respondent to create a distinction based on FIR or complaint for the purpose of reckoning the limitation.

“The computing point of limitation for the purpose of Section 468, Cr.PC is held to be the date of filing complaint – the date of initiation of criminal proceedings. Whether the case belongs to one instituted before the Magistrate under Section 173 or it is upon a complaint filed before the police, what matters is the date of initiation of criminal proceedings.”, the court said.

It was in this context that the Court made the aforesaid observation, cautioning the lawyers to refrain from unnecessarily arguing otherwise on a settled proposition of law.

As a result thereof, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the Respondent No.2 were restored to their original file before the trial court.

Cause Title: ROMA AHUJA VERSUS THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 351

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shivani Vij, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajkumar Bhaskar Thakare, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Rishikesh Haridas, Adv. Ms. Seema Bengani, Adv. Mr. Vevek Gurnani, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Ms. Anjana Kishore, Sr. Adv. Mr. Praveen Swarup, Adv. Dr. Ashutosh, Adv. Mr. Niraj Dubey, Adv. Mr. Pradum Kumar, Adv. Mr. Devesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Ashish Kandpal, Adv. Mr. Sukhamrit Singh, Adv.