By D N Singh
The urgent hearing to Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Manish Sisodia is case in point which requires a revisit. There are some places where the apex court appear faltering in its stance.
Once the apex court had refused to hear the petition, later on the SC agreed to hear. That was pending the results from the High Court. Why then such a hearing pending the jurisdictional view of the HC?
Sisodia was in CBI custody for probes till Feb 4.
Even though the CJI observed that the petitioner was yet to avail the alternative remedies before the jurisdictional High Court, he agreed to hear the petition later that day.
However, when the matter was actually heard later in the day, the CJI refused to entertain the petition, citing that Article 32 of the Constitution of India cannot be used to, inter alia, challenge remand and seek bail, and that Sisodia had not exhausted the option to approach the relevant High Court.
Dr Singhvi’s plea that the case involved ‘exceptional circumstances’ and therefore warranted intervention of the highest court was not entertained.
Obviously the SC could have dismissed the petition in the morning itself. And it leaves many legal brains what was that ‘Exceptional circumstance’ in the views of the SC.
While efficiency in judicial work should not be conflated with justice itself, time is of utmost essence in cases involving detention and arrest. Thus, if the SC has made up its mind about an impugned issue, it should pass swift directions rather than going into protracted meaningless hearings, something which happened on Tuesday.
Not only will this save the precious time of the court, but also set standards for rights adjudication in the country. But without diminishing the significance of this first issue, let us examine the second question for the purposes of this piece.
In the Apex court’s view personal liberty did not find a pertinent place. An argument may be made that the earlier cases pertained to offences which collided with freedom of speech but it would still not answer why there should be a differential treatment of cases when what is at stake is the same intangible personal liberty of an individual
Not to mention, this open question lays bare the concerning lack of predictability in the functioning of our Supreme Court, especially in matters directly concerning personal liberty and freedom of individuals
