Administration of Justice – Miscarriage of procedural justice – The principal grievance urged was that the petitioner was directly affected by the order of the High Court, but he was neither made a party to the proceedings nor was he furnished a notice of the proceedings – The Supreme Court permitted to file application for recall of the High Court’s order (26.12.2023) – The High Court dismissed the application – SLP filed by the petitioner for recall of the order of the High Court: Held: Earlier, when the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to move an application for recall of the High Court’s order, the directions of the High Court for transfer of the petitioner were stayed – The Court also stayed the order issued pursuant to the High Court’s directions posting the petitioner as Principal Secretary (Ayush), Government of Himanchal Pradesh – However, the High Court dismissed the recall application and directed the State to consider forming a Special Investigation Team consisting of IG level officers to coordinate the investigation in all the FIRs and to advise the government on providing effective security to the complainant and his family – In the instant case, the correct course of action for the High Court would have been to recall its ex parte order and to commence the proceedings afresh so as to furnish both the petitioner and the complainant and other affected parties including the SP, Kangra, an opportunity to place their perspectives before it – Instead, the High Court, while deciding the recall application, heavily relied on the status report submitted by the SP, Shimla – The impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction – The order was passed without compliance with the principles of justice, especially, the principle of audi alteram partem – The order dated 26.12.2023 had serious consequences, and it was passed without hearing the petitioner who stood to be affected by it – A post-decisional hearing of the kind conducted by the High Court lacks fresh and dispassionate application of mind to the merits of the recall application, and is for that very reason, likely to cause disquiet – Thus, the direction of the High Court directing the shifting out of the petitioner from the post of DGP is set aside – However, the directions of the High Court to consider constituting an SIT and grant of protection to the complainant and his family are not disturbed – Instead of and in place of the direction of the High Court requiring the State Government to consider constituting an SIT, the State is directed to do so – The SIT shall consist of IG level officers who shall not report to the petitioner for the purpose of the investigation. [Paras 33, 34, 36, 37]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.