New Delhi, Feb 5 (UNI) The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on the issue of redefining the parameters of judicial discipline which ought to be observed by judges while delivering the judgements.
A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran and J M Panchal reserved its verdict after concluding the case, which was referred by a two-judge bench comprising Justices H K Sema and Markandey Katju to a larger bench following differences of opinion between the two judges on January 29 this year.
Concurring with the finding of Justice Sema while deciding the petition filed by Som Mittal Managing Director of Hewlett Packard Global Soft Limited, Justice Katju had recommended to the government to restore the provision of anticipatory bail in Uttar Pradesh while the case belong to the Karnataka.
Justice Katju has been in the eye of storm in several judgements delivered by him and the latest was telling the judiciary not to try to run the government and not to overstep its limits by straying into the domain of the Legislature and the Executive.
Mittal challenged the Karnataka High Court's order dismissing his petition under Section 482 CRPC seeking to quash the criminal proceedings for not providing adequate security to a female employee of his company who were subjected to rape while returning to home at odd hours in the night.
Mittal was charged with offence under Section 25 of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act but the High Court while dismissing his petition added Section 30 of the Act to make the punishment more stringent.
The two-judge bench pulled up the High Court for adding new Sections against the petitioner and Justice Sema held that the power under Section 482 should be exercised only in rarest of rare cases.
The Supreme Court reserved the verdict after hearing the arguments of all the parties. Senior counsel K K Venugopal appearing for the petitioner pleaded that if single judge of this court could not travel beyond the issues involved in a particular case and its amounted to judicial indiscipline.
UNI AKS/SC SW HS1841