'No Case Is Small For Supreme Court, It Has Duty To Interfere In Matters Of Personal Liberty' : CJI DY Chandrachud Says After Law Minister's Remarks

No case is too small for the Supreme Court, said the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud said on Friday, while asking "if we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief, then what are we doing here?".Incidentally, the Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had commented yesterday in the Parliament that the Supreme Court should not be hearing bail applications and should rather hear constitutional matters.The CJI's comments, which might come across as a probable response to the Law Minister's statement, came while hearing a case in which a person has been ordered to undergo consecutive sentences to the tune of total 18 years for the theft of electricity. The accused accepted plea bargaining and he was sentenced to two years in each of the nine cases. The authorities held that the sentences have to run consecutively, instead of concurrently, resulting in a total sentence of 18 years."Absolutely shocking case", the bench comprising CJI Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha observed as soon as the matter was taken, noting that the appellant has already undergone 7 years of sentence. The appellant approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to order that his sentences should run concurrently. "If the Supreme Court is not to interfere in this matter, what are we here for? If we don't interfere in matters of personal liberty, and we don't order the release of this person, then what are we here for. We are then acting in breach of Article 136 of the Constitution", CJI Chandrachud said.The bench sought the assistance of Senior Advocate and former Madras High Court judge S Nagamutu, who was incidentally in the court for another case, to resolve, what it termed an "extraordinary situation"."This becomes a life sentence", Nagamuthu said while saying that the High Court order was incorrect."Therefore the need for the Supreme Court", immediately came the reply of the CJI. "When you sit here, no case is too small for the Supreme Court and no case is too big. Because we are here to answer the call of conscience and the cry for liberty of the citizens. That is why we are here. These are not one off cases. When you sit here and burn the midnight oil, you realize everyday there is one case or another like that", CJI added.In the order passed granting relief to the appellant, the bench observed that it is in "seemingly small routine matters" that "issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge"."The right to personal liberty is an inalienable right. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs its duty, no more and no less", the bench stated in the order."The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the court were not to do so, the serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of the citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention", the bench stated in the order."The history of this court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this court to protect the liberty of the citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Article 136 of the Constitution. The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognized by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less", the bench added in the order.The bench allowed the appeal by ordering that the sentences in the nine cases against the appellant should run concurrently. "All said and done, you cannot elevate the theft of electricity to murder", CJI Chandrachud remarked after dictating the order, while adding that the High Court should have intervened in the matter.In the Parliament, Minister Rijiju had said : "If the Supreme Court starts hearing bail applications or frivolous PILs, it will cause lots of extra burden... More than 4 crore (40 million) cases are pending in trial courts where the government has a stake. We give money, support to create better infrastructure. But we have to ask the judiciary to ensure that only deserving people are given justice".Case Title : Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. | SLP (Crl) No. 8238/2022Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1032For Petitioner(s) Mr. Md. Anas chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Shehla Chaudhary, Adv. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, AOR;For Respondent(s) Mr. Sarvesh Singh Baghel, AOR Mr. Divyanshu Sahay, Adv.Constitution of India - Article 21 - Supreme Court's duty to protect personal liberty -No case is too small for the Court -The history of this Court indicates that it is in the ...

'No Case Is Small For Supreme Court, It Has Duty To Interfere In Matters Of Personal Liberty' : CJI DY Chandrachud Says After Law Minister's Remarks

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags