- News>
- India
Private parties can move SC to prevent miscarriage of justice
New Delhi, Oct 23: In a major judgement that could justify intervention of National Human Rights Commission in Gujarat riot cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that interested private parties can move the apex court in cases where they apprehend miscarriage of justice by acquittal of the accused.
New Delhi, Oct 23: In a major judgement that could justify intervention of National Human Rights Commission in Gujarat riot cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that interested private parties can move the apex court in cases where they apprehend miscarriage of justice by acquittal of the accused.
Though in a criminal case persons other than the state and the accused have no locus standi to file appeals, a bench, comprising Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Justice Arijit Pasayat, said a petition moved by an interested private party apprehending miscarriage of justice could still be entertained by the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
"We do not have the slightest doubt that we can entertain appeals against judgements of acquittal by the high court at the instance of interested private parties also," the bench said in a recent judgement.
The ruling comes in a murder case where the trial court had convicted four persons on various charges. However, the Allahabad High Court had acquitted all the accused and had dismissed the appeal of the state. One Ramakant Rai, father of the victim, had moved the apex court challenging the acquittal but the accused had questioned his locus standi to file an appeal.
Discussing Article 136, Justice Pasayat, writing for the bench, said the article neither conferred on any one the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this court nor inhibited anyone from invoking the court's jurisidiction.
The bench said the power was vested in the apex court but the right to invoke the court's jurisdiction was vested in no one. The exercise of the power of the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution was not circumscribed by any limitation as to who could invoke it, it added.
"Where a judgement of acquittal by the high court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice, this court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not the state has invoked the court's jurisdiction," Justice Pasayat said.
He said that the absence of provision for a private party to move the apex court in appeal against the orders of acquittal by the high court "has no relevance to the question of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136".
The bench said that Article 136 in express terms did not confer a right of appeal on a private party as such but conferred a wide discretionary power on the supreme court to interfere in suitable cases.
"Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude; its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself," Justice Pasayat said. Bureau Report
"We do not have the slightest doubt that we can entertain appeals against judgements of acquittal by the high court at the instance of interested private parties also," the bench said in a recent judgement.
The ruling comes in a murder case where the trial court had convicted four persons on various charges. However, the Allahabad High Court had acquitted all the accused and had dismissed the appeal of the state. One Ramakant Rai, father of the victim, had moved the apex court challenging the acquittal but the accused had questioned his locus standi to file an appeal.
Discussing Article 136, Justice Pasayat, writing for the bench, said the article neither conferred on any one the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this court nor inhibited anyone from invoking the court's jurisidiction.
The bench said the power was vested in the apex court but the right to invoke the court's jurisdiction was vested in no one. The exercise of the power of the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution was not circumscribed by any limitation as to who could invoke it, it added.
"Where a judgement of acquittal by the high court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice, this court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not the state has invoked the court's jurisdiction," Justice Pasayat said.
He said that the absence of provision for a private party to move the apex court in appeal against the orders of acquittal by the high court "has no relevance to the question of the power of the Supreme Court under Article 136".
The bench said that Article 136 in express terms did not confer a right of appeal on a private party as such but conferred a wide discretionary power on the supreme court to interfere in suitable cases.
"Article 136 is a special jurisdiction. It is residuary power; it is extraordinary in its amplitude; its limits, when it chases injustice, is the sky itself," Justice Pasayat said. Bureau Report