25 July 2024

1. Supreme Court allows petitioner-in-person to convert writ petition as SLP, Grants interim protection from coercive action

In a notable case, the Supreme Court recently refrained from turning away a petitioner, who appeared in person, merely because he availed of a wrong remedy (a writ petition under article 32) and allowed him to convert the writ petition into a special leave petition under Article 136 of the constitution.

It would be expedient for the ends of justice to grant liberty to the petitioner to carry out suitable amendments in the petition to convert it into a special leave petition until further orders, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, the bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice N Kotiswar Singh said.

Briefly stated the court was dealing with a petitioner-in-person who filed a writ petition under article 32 of the constitution seeking anticipatory bail. He was accused in a private complaint and initially challenged the proceedings by filing a writ petition before the High Court in 2009. Subsequently the proceedings were stayed by the High Court, but the stay stood automatically vacated in view of the Supreme Court’s decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation.

However, it noted that the decision in Asian Resurfacing was overruled by a constitution bench of the court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Reference was also made to the recent decision in Pawan Agrawal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, where an interim order passed by the High Court in the appellant’s favor was held to have revived from the date of overruling of Asian Resurfacing.

Relying on the above the court opined in the present case as well, there was no reason for the High Court’s interim order to not be revived, especially considering that the writ petition before the high court was reported to be pending.

Accordingly, the petitioner was granted liberty to amend his petition to a special leave petition challenging the order of the sessions judge, Ghaziabad.

Case- VIJAY BHUSHAN GAUTAM vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2. Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea to include Tribunals in National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG)

The Supreme Court declined to hear a petition seeking the inclusion of tribunals in the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG).

The bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra dismissed the petition considering that the NJDG is a part of the E-Courts project which only covers the functioning of courts.

The NJDG is a key part of the e-courts project, offering easy access to information about court cases. It shows data on new, pending, and completed cases, making the justice system more open. However tribunals setup under various laws are not yet part of this system.

The CJI explained that as per the ambit of the E-Court project, the Supreme Court is in collaboration with the Department of justice and the project only covers the court system.

Dismissing the petition, the court clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to pursue any other prayer he has by adopting the appropriate course of law. The petitioner was also allowed to make representation before the union.

Case- KISHAN CHAND JAIN vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

3. Supreme Court seeks personal affidavit on Goa Chief Secretary on lesser pay scale for staff of Bombay HC Goa Bench

 The Supreme Court sought a response from the chief secretary of Goa government over the non-implementation of directions for pay upgradation given by the Bombay High Court Chief Justice.

The direction for upgrading the pay scale, issued under Article 229 of the Indian Constitution, were meant for Group A and B secretariat Staff of the Bombay High Court. It  was the grievance of the applicants-retired High Court Staff (Goa branch) that while the Maharastra government complied with these directions for the Bombay, Aurangabad and Nagpur benches the goa government rejected them for the Goa bench. The present applicants sought directions to the Goa Government to implement the pay upgradation rules as approved by the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court.

However, the bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud pointed out that these rules differ significantly from what was originally submitted to the Goa government by the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court.

The court had taken suo motu cognizance of a letter written to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by former employees of the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court concerning the lack of pensionary benefits provided to them despite the lapse of 3-7 years of retirement. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala had appointed advocate Mahfooz A Nazki as the amicus curiae in the matter.

Case- Re Pension Benefits for Employees Retired from High Court At Goa vs. State of Goa And Ors.