'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.HeadnoteCriminal Procedure – Limitation for taking cognizance – Relevant date for computation – Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – The Supreme Court reiterated that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence - held that the High Court committed a "patent error" by quashing an FIR on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed beyond one year, mistakenly treating the date of cognizance as the decisive factor.Interpretation of Statutes – Legal Maxims – Role in developing legal concepts – Professional Ethics – Duty of Advocates – Binding Precedents - The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of legal maxims such as actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no one) and nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi (time does not run against the king/crime never dies) as guiding principles founded in reason and public convenience - Noted that advocates have a duty to respect binding precedents and should not consume public time by making submissions that contradict well-settled law or "strong-operated" precedents from a Constitution Bench. [Relied on Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (2014) 2 SCC 62; Paras 5-10]Cause Title: ROMA AHUJA VERSUS THE STATE AND ANOTHERCitation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 351Click here to download judgmentAppearance: For...

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

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

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers