NIRMALA J. JHALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Constitution of India art. 311(2)
Judgment
- contestants and lawyers breathing down his neck. If the fact A that he renders a decision which is resented by a litigant or his lawyer were to expose him to such risk, it will sound the death knell of the institution. "Judge bashing" has become a favourite pastime of some people. There is growing tendency of maligning the reputation of judicial officers by B disgruntled elements who fail to secure an order which they desire. For functioning of democracy, an independent judiciary, to ·dispense justice without fear and favour is paramount. Judiciary should not be reduced to the position of flies in the hands of wanton boys. In case the High Court c does not protect the honest judicial officers, the survivor of the judicial system would itself be in danger. [Paras 6 ll(c) and (d)] [217-B-D, E] /shwar Chand Jain vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Anr. AIR 1988 SC 1395: 1988 (1) Suppl. SCR 396; D Yoginath D. Bagde vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 1999 SC 3734: 1999 (2) Suppl. SCR 490; L.D. Jaikwal vs. State of U.PAIR1984SC1374: 1984(3) SCR 833;K.P. Tiwarivs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1031: 1993 (3) Suppl. SCR 497; Haridas Das vs. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Ors. etc. AIR E 2007 SC 2688: 2007 (8) SCR 365: In Re: Ajay Kumar Pandey AIR 1998 SC 3299: 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 87 - relied on.
3.1. Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. The only consideration, the Court/Tribunal has in its judicial F review, is to consider whether the·conclusion is based on evidence on record and supports the finding or whether the conclusion is based on no evidence. The adequacy or reliability of the evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the Court in writ G proceedings. [Para 6 Ill (i)] [217-G-H; 218-A]
3.2. An administrative order can be set-aside if it is based on extraneous grounds, or when there are no grounds at all for passing it or when the grounds are such that, no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion. The Court does not sit as a H 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 5 S.C.R. B A Court of Appeal but, it merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. The Court will not normally exercise its power of judicial review unless it is found that formation of belief by the statutory authority suffers from malafides, dishonest/corrupt practice. The authority must act in good faith. Neither the question as to whether there was sufficient evidence before the authority can be raised/examined, nor the question of re-appreciating the evidence to examine the correctness of the order under challenge. If there are sufficient grounds for passing an order, then even if one of c them is found to be correct, and on its basis the order impugned can be passed, there is no occasion for the Court to interfere. The jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. This apart, even when some defect is found in the decision"making process, the Court must exercise its discretionary power with great caution keeping in mind the larger public interest and only when it comes to the conclusion that overwhelming public interest requires interference, the Court should intervene. [Para 6 Ill (iii)] [218- G-H; 219-A-D] E 0 State of T.N. and Anr vs. S. Subramaniam AIR 1996 SC 1232: 1996 SCR 968; R.S. Saini vs. State of Punjab (1999) 8 SCC 90; Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. Mohd. Nasru//ah Khan AIR 2006 SC 1214: 2006 (1) SCR 911; Zora F Singh vs. J.M. Tandon and Ors. AIR 1971SC1537 - relied on. 4.1. The evidence recorded fn preliminary inquiry cannot be used in regular inquiry as the delinquent is not associated with it, and opportunity to cross-examine the persons G examined in such inquiry is not given. Using such evidence would be violative of the principles of natural justice. The preliminary enquiry may be useful only to take a prima facie view, as to whether there can be some substance in the allegation made against an employee which may warrant a H regular enquiry. [Paras 23 and 25] [229-E-F; H; 230-A] NIRMALA J. JHALA v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. 205 Amlendu Ghosh vs. District Traffic Superintendent, North- A
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.