GET Stock QuotesNews18 APP
News18 English
Powered by cricketnext logo
»
2-min read

Duty of Judge to Sustain Judicial Balance for Adjudication, Says Supreme Court

The duty of a judge is to sustain judicial balance and not to cause trauma to adjudication process, the Supreme Court has ruled while setting aside an order of the Hyderabad High Court directing the police not to arrest three accused in a riots case.

Press Trust Of India

Updated:January 8, 2017, 9:40 AM IST
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp
Duty of Judge to Sustain Judicial Balance for Adjudication, Says Supreme Court
A view of Supreme Court of India building in New Delhi. (Image: PTI)

New Delhi: The duty of a judge is to sustain judicial balance and not to cause trauma to adjudication process, the Supreme Court has ruled while setting aside an order of the Hyderabad High Court directing the police not to arrest three accused in a riots case.

A bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra also said courts should oust "unscrupulous litigants" from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court at the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of an FIR or investigation.

The court allowed an appeal filed by the Telangana government in which it had said that whether the high court, while refusing to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC, can restrain the probe agency from arresting the accused persons during the course of probe.

The bench also comprising Justice Amitava Roy said that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of CrPC, a high court should exercise "judicial restraint".

"It is the duty of a judge to sustain the judicial balance and not to think of an order which can cause trauma to the process of adjudication. It should be borne in mind that the culture of adjudication is stabilised when intellectual discipline is maintained and further when such discipline constantly keeps guard on the mind," the bench said.

"The courts should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the court at the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the court to keep such unprincipled and unethical litigants at bay," the court said.

"What needs to be stated here is that the states where Section 438 CrPC has not been deleted and kept on the statute book, the high court should be well advised that while entertaining petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 CrPC, exercise judicial restraint," it said.

Read full article
Next Story
facebookTwittergoogleskypewhatsapp

Live TV