Summary
The Court declined to revisit its coal-block-allocation direction reserving applications that stay or impede investigations or trials to the Supreme Court. Remedies were not extinguished: the forum shifted to this Court. The special treatment of this identifiable class of cases was upheld, with statutory restrictions on revision and stays emphasized.
Issues
- Whether reserving impediment or stay applications to the Supreme Court unlawfully removed statutory or constitutional remedies.
- How revision, inherent powers and the corruption statute’s stay restrictions applied.
Provisions considered
- Sections 397 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Revision is discretionary; final and intermediate orders differ from purely interlocutory orders. Inherent jurisdiction is exceptional and cannot routinely circumvent procedural restrictions. (¶ 11–34)
- Sections 19(3)(b), 19(3)(c), 19(4) and 22(d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The judgment construed the narrow sanction-related stay exception, the prohibition on other stays and interlocutory revision, and safeguards against indirectly impeding trial by calling for records. (¶ 61–77)
- Articles 14, 21, 136 and 142, Constitution of IndiaThe special class and continued Supreme Court remedy sustained the forum arrangement against equality, liberty and access-to-justice objections. (¶¶ 42–54, 78–82)
Held
- An intermediate order is one whose reversal would terminate proceedings, such as cognizance/summoning or framing charges. The absence of a vested right to revision and continuing access under Article 136 answered the asserted denial of remedies in these cases. (¶ 17–29)
- High Court constitutional jurisdiction cannot be curtailed, but judicial discipline supported abstention in this extraordinary category, leaving relief to the Supreme Court. The coal cases formed an identifiable public-interest class and the arrangement did not deny substantive safeguards. (¶ 35–53)
- Under the statutory construction adopted here, a stay under Section 19(3) required a sanction error, omission or irregularity causing failure of justice; a general allegation of failure of justice did not create another exception. Timeliness and actual prejudice mattered. (¶ 61–77)
- Reserving applications that obstruct trial was distinguished from supervising or monitoring the Special Judge’s conduct of the trial, which remained that judge’s responsibility. (¶¶ 55–60, 78–81)
Result
Matters disposed of without revisiting or modifying the order of 25 July 2014; no adjudication of the accused persons’ guilt.