Though Notice On Petition Was Issued On Limited Point, Court Can Later Hear Other Points : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently ruled that issuing a limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction to address broader issues. If the petitioner highlights substantial legal questions or glaring errors, such as procedural lapses or flawed findings in the lower court's judgment, the Bench may examine those issues beyond the notice's initial scope.

The Court observed as follows:

“Justice could be a real casualty if the same or the subsequent Bench, in all situations of limited notice having been issued initially, is held to be denuded of its jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the contentions relatable to points not referred to in the notice issuing order. As it is, since exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary, notices on appeals/petitions are not frequently issued by this Court. Nonetheless, if in a given case, notice is issued which is limited on terms but the party approaching the Court is otherwise persuasive in pointing out that the case does involve a substantial question of law deserving consideration and the Bench is so satisfied, we see no reason why the case may not be heard on such or other points. In such a case, the jurisdiction to decide all legal and valid points, as raised, does always exist and would not get diminished or curtailed by a limited notice issuing order. However, whether or not to exercise the power of enlarging the scope of the petition/appeal is essentially a matter in the realm of discretion of the Bench and the discretion is available to be exercised when a satisfaction is reached that the justice of the case so demands. If this position is not accepted, Order LV Rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 read with Article 142 of the Constitution will lose much of its significance.”

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan was hearing a criminal appeal filed by an accused convicted under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act). The Court had granted leave limited to two issues: the applicability of the PC Act and the quantum of sentence for other offences. However, the appellant's counsel sought to include a plea for acquittal, which was opposed by the respondent's counsel as being beyond the scope of the limited notice issued by the Court.

Rejecting the Respondent's objection, the Court observed that the limited notice does not restrict its jurisdiction. It allowed the appellant to present broader arguments.

“Based on our aforesaid understanding of the legal position, we have heard Mr. Baruah (Appellant's counsel) on the merits of the appeal without allowing any technicality to stand in the way to satisfy our conscience that the limited notice issued by the coordinate Bench does not result in any injustice being caused to the appellant.”, the Court observed.

Although the outcome of the case did not favor the appellant, the Court clarified that procedural limitations cannot overshadow substantial justice. If a significant question of law warranting the Bench's consideration is raised, even if it goes beyond the scope of the limited notice, it should not be disregarded.

Case Title: BISWAJIT DAS VERSUS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 89

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Mr. Anurag Mishra, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv. Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Adv. Mr. Shantnu Sharma, Adv. Mr. P V Yogeswaran, Adv. Mrs. Ranjana Narayan, Adv. Mr. Kartik Dey, Adv.