'Feel Very Strongly About It' : Supreme Court Takes Objection To Centre Saying That A Judgment Recorded Submissions Which Weren't Made

The Supreme Court on Monday took strong objection to an application for clarification filed by the Centre's police agencies (respondents in a matter where judgment was delivered in December, 2021), urging that some of the submissions which were recorded in the judgment and on the basis of which the Court had proceeded were never advanced by them.In the said judgment, the bench of Justices D. Y. Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath had observed that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against persons with mental disabilities is a facet of indirect discrimination. The Apex Court was adjudicating upon a case wherein disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an officer of the Central Reserve Police Force who had been diagnosed with 40 to 70 percent mental disability.At the outset, on Monday, Justice Chandrachud put to Additional Solicitor General Madhavi Diwan, who had appeared in the original proceedings for the Centre and its agencies, "What happens when a law officer says 'I have filed a 100 page affidavit, please read the affidavit so that you are not burdened with reading the record'? I have the record in front of me! Now your officer has filed an MA before us that these submissions were never made? After once you had drawn our attention to your counter affidavit? Every one of the submissions was contained in the counter! Have we thought of them from our own imagination? Every one of the submissions which we have recorded is traceable back to the counter affidavit you had filed. I am going to put down para by para so that I don't have another MA""It was submitted before us that the Union cannot risk placing a man of unstable mind...that retaining him would severely affect the mentality of paramilitary forces...that he has excesive OCD and suicidal tendencies...it was your submission that you cannot give him a weapon", pointed out the judge.Continuing, Justice Chandrachud stated, "Most of my judgments come within 2 weeks, so there is no question of some long lapse. We hold up the brief when we dictate. We make a précis. We take responsibility for the judgments we dictate. And after we burn the midnight oil, and deliver judgments, there is an MA saying we never made these submissions? An officer of DIG rank saying 'some of the submissions' recorded were not made? I feel very strongly about this"Justice Chandrachud added, "We must keep a transcription of the proceedings in court. That will obviate all this"The bench, also comprising Justice Surya Kant, proceeded to dictate- "The judgment of this court dated December 17, 2021 adverts to the submissions which were made before this court by Ms. Madhawi Diwan, ASG, appearing on behalf of the Union of India and other agencies. Each of the submissions which have been inferred in the paragraphs have been specifically cross-referenced on the basis of the counter affidavit which was filed by the Union of India. To set the record state, it would be necessary to refer to the submissions as recorded within the judgment and the paragraphs of the counter-affidavit on the basis of which the submissions are recorded. It needs to be clarified that during the course of the hearing, the ASG has drawn the attention of the court to the fact that the counter-affidavit has been filed by the Union of India setting out the detailed facts in the history of the case. The submissions which have been recorded are based on the counter-affidavit which was filed by the Union of India."Post-order mentioningDuring afternoon, ASG Divan made a mentioning of the matter and submitted that the said submissions were recorded from the counter-affidavit and were not made by her in the court. The bench agreed to clarify it accordingly and pass an order to that effect.In the order passed, the bench said :"In paragraph 14 of the judgment of this Court dated 17 December 2021, the words, namely, "Ms Madhavi Divan, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondents, has urged that" shall stand deleted and be substituted by the words "A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating that". At the end of paragraph 14, the following sentence shall stand inserted:"Ms Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared on behalf of the respondents and has placed relevant perspectives before the Court having regard to the mental condition of the petitioner."(The dictated order was not passed)BackgroundWhile setting aside the disciplinary proceedings, the Supreme Court had observed,"A person with a disability is entitled to protection under the RPwD Act as long as the disability was one of the factors for the discriminatory act"The mental disability of a person need not be the sole cause of the misconduct that led to the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any residual control that persons with mental disabilities have over their conduct merely diminishes the extent to which the disability contributed to the conduct. The...

'Feel Very Strongly About It' : Supreme Court Takes Objection To Centre Saying That A Judgment Recorded Submissions Which Weren't Made

Mehal Jain

Tags