Judges are not elected and cannot seek social media opinions from the public before pronouncing judgments, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna recently said.

Rather, CJI Khanna highlighted that the judiciary is held accountable through various mechanisms, such as the training judges receive to decide when to act and when to show restraint. The bar also plays a crucial role in maintaining this accountability, he stated.

"How is the judiciary accountable to the people? We are not elected, we should not be elected. We cannot go to social media before we pronounce and see whether you are going to like or not like the judgment. That's not possible, should not be done. I think the biggest check on the judiciary comes from several instruments which are built around. One is our training, both with regard to when we should we be active and when we should we restrain ourselves. Second, is the bar, because everything which is argued in judiciary is transparent. It is in the open court. Our courts are open, you address arguments, you speak out and we speak through our judgments," he said.

He observed that it is the individuals on the bench who shape and uphold the judiciary's integrity at any given time.

"Given the sheer volume of work, we cannot sit in a full court ... Judicial accountability largely depends on the judges who adorn the chair, because judges make the institution at that particular point of time," the CJI stated.

He added that there are strong advantages to having a polyvocal court, as judges from diverse regions brings a variety of experiences and perspectives, which strengthens decision-making.

"I used to earlier debate whether we should sit in a full court while deciding most matters, as the US court (does) ... But I also believe there is a big advantage in having judges from different jurisdictions who adorn the Bench in the Supreme Court. They bring in their own thought processes, their own jurisprudence and when we sit in twos and threes, they give their own opinions. Sometimes, it varies, we can say we are polyvocal. But at the same time, ultimately, this helps us come to the right conclusion," he said.

CJI Khanna was speaking at discussion organised by the Society for Democratic Rights and the Georgetown University Law Center on December 11.

He engaged in a discussion with William M Treanor, Dean of Georgetown Law, on the approaches taken by the Supreme Court of India and the US Supreme Court in securing fundamental rights for citizens. Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija moderated the event.

During the talk, CJI Khanna lauded India’s legal aid system, describing it as one of the most robust mechanisms in the world.

He also highlighted the success of the Lok Adalat system of alternative dispute resolution, observing that around 130 billion cases have been dealt with by such 'people's courts' in the last seven years.

He highlighted the immense relief this provides to the conventional courts which are already overburdened.

"I have visited villages and I find there's always a smile in the face of the villages whenever you talk about Lok Adalats. They are very happy with the success of Lok Adalats and the relief which they get. So that's bringing justice at the doorsteps of the people... We reach out to them and sort out their problems. These are certain aspects of legal aid which, perhaps, nowhere else in the world you will filed," he added.

The CJI also drew attention to the significant role of pro bono lawyers in India with over 8,000 professionals volunteering their services and often handling complex cases.

On social issues, the Chief Justice reflected on India’s progressive stance on women's rights. He noted that India is ahead of many nations in terms of abortion rights.

"As far as women rights and abortion is considered, we are perhaps way ahead in many ways ... And it happened gradually, there is no tussle in society about this. Society has been supportive," he went on to remark.

CJI Khanna also highlighted the fundamental importance of certain fundamental rights and how their interpretation has evolved over time.

He emphasized the significance of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to equality. Over the years, the judiciary has expanded its understanding to include the principles of manifest arbitrariness and the doctrine of proportionality, he said.

Likewise, Article 21 on right to life and liberty has been expanded by courts to encompass critical rights such as food security, access to education and a safe and sustainable environment.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) need not be outrightly rejected, although a final call on how far it should be used needs some consideration, Supreme Court judge Justice KV Viswanathan recently opined.

He was speaking at an event organised at the Delhi High Court on December 11 to launch a commentary on Patent Law authored by advocate Adarsh Ramanujan.

During his address, Justice Viswanathan praised the book, particularly for its "fascinating discussion” on artificial intelligence and its interplay with patent law. 

“I don't think that AI should be outrightly rejected. It calls for a certain amount of thought before we take a final call on it,” Justice Viswanathan said.

Conceived during the COVID-19 lockdown period, Ramanujan’s commentary published by Oakbridge Publishing, offers a critical analysis into myriad of issues concerning the growth of patent law, patentability, artificial intelligence, patent bargain theory and international law on patents.

Supreme Court judge Justice Manmohan was also among the dignitaries who attended the book launch event.

“Patent law is where future lies. It is a growing field that puts the lawyer first," Justice Manmohan said.

He went on to refer to recent data released by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) indicating an increase in patent applications filed at the Indian Patent Office. The judge observed that this is an “encouraging trend.”

He lauded the lawyers and judges at the Delhi High Court as well for being ready to take up challenges in this arena.

“Our bar is willing to match up to international standards,” Justice Manmohan added.

He also mentioned with pride that two Delhi High Judges of the Intellectual Property (IP) division, Justices Jyoti Singh and Amit Bansal, were recently made part of a list of 50 most influential persons in IP.

The event also featured a panel discussion on the ‘The Fuzzy Boundaries of Patent Law’ during which Justice Prathiba M Singh observed that patenting is important to identify the originator of an invention, and for incentivising innovation.

Senior Advocates CS Vaidyanathan and Chander M Lall also spoke as part of the panel discussion.

Vaidyanathan observed that patent examiners need more training.

"Unfortunately, I find very often, they (patent examiners) don't even know how to draft an order when some objections are raised," he said.

Chander Lall said that India is knowledge-based society and that a large number of patents are for inventions created by Indian inventors.

The Bombay High Court recently declined to quash a first information report (FIR) registered against two individuals accused of slapping a Dalit Member of Parliament from the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) during a party meeting in Mumbai [Neema Sanjay Rangari and anr v State of Maharashtra]

A Bench of Justice Sarang Kotwal and Justice Neela Gokhale said that it found no grounds to quash the atrocities case and that the offences were clearly made out against the two accused.

"There is no justification for slapping a member of parliament belonging to a scheduled caste, in public view and utterance of those derogatory words. The offences under the said Act are clearly made out. No case for quashing of the FIR is made out," the Court held.

The incident occurred on July 17 this year during a meeting of the Maharashtra Pradesh BSP at Dadar where the party was announcing its new President and committee members.

The meeting was attended by a senior Rajya Sabha MP, who was allegedly slapped by one of the accused, a woman party member, when she came in front of him in a queue.

During the altercation, both accused also allegedly made derogatory remarks about two specific scheduled castes, saying that the party is made up of people from those two castes.

According to the FIR filed by a party official with the Dadar police station, the two accused were upset because they were not given tickets to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha elections.

The accused were booked for offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

They then approached the High Court to quash the case.

The petitioners argued that the FIR was politically motivated and lodged with malafide intent. They pointed out that the FIR was not filed by the MP who was allegedly slapped but by the President of Maharashtra BSP.

They also claimed that no derogatory remarks were made by them.

They also highlighted an FIR filed by one of the accused in Bhandara, alleging abuse and claiming she was pushed off the stage during the same event.

The petitioners maintained that the case was a result of political vendetta, also referred to a non-cognizable report (NC) lodged at Dadar police station on the same day, which did not include any reference to the MP.

However, the Court found sufficient material to support the FIR, including witness statements and CCTV footage that captured the entire incident.

The Bench concluded that the derogatory remarks made by the petitioners targeted specific scheduled castes and the assault was witnessed by multiple individuals.

"The incident recorded in the CCTV camera is described in that panchanama. It supports the version in the FIR and of the eye witnesses," the Court stated.

Given the "overwhelming" circumstances and materials against the petitioners, the Court dismissed the petition and refused to quash the FIR.

“The intention of the petitioners is clearly made out in the F.I.R. The incident was witnessed by many other witnesses… All these statements show that the utterances were highly humiliating,” the Court held.

Advocate Ashwin Thool instructed by advocate Archismati Chandramore appeared for the petitioners.

Additional Public Prosecutor MH Mhatre represented the State.

Senior Advocate Rajendra Shirodkar along with advocates Nihar S Ghag, Anil Y Bansode and Pradeep Shirsat appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]

Days after Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash died by suicide, his estranged wife Nikita Singhania and her family members have approached the Allahabad High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the abetment of suicide case lodged against them in Bengaluru.

According to the High Court's website, Nikita, her mother Nisha Singhania, her brother Anurag Singhania and her uncle Sushil Singhania filed anticipatory bail plea on December 13.

The matter is expected to be heard next week.

Senior Advocate Tejas Singh along with advocates Ajay Kumar Singh, and Aushim Luthra will represent them.

A first information report (FIR) was lodged in Bengaluru by Bikas Kumar, Atul's brother, accusing Nikita and her three family members for abetment of suicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Subhash, a 34-year-old software engineer, had died by suicide in Bengaluru. He left behind an elaborate suicide note and also made a video blaming his wife Nikita Singhania and her family of harassing him and filing false cases against him, driving him to take his life.

His video and suicide note have sparked a debate on social media, with many calling for the arrest of Nikita and her family members.

In the video, he was seen accusing Nikita Singhania and her family of harassing him through multiple matrimonial cases amid their ongoing legal battle over divorce, alimony and child custody in a family court in Uttar Pradesh's Jaunpur.

In light of the incident, a public interest litigation (PIL) has also been filed before the Supreme Court, alleging misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws against men and seeking guidelines to prevent such misuse.

The Supreme Court on Friday expressed its strong disapproval at a trial court's failure to frame charges and commence trial in a case of attempt to murder dating back to 2016 [Pradeep Pandurang Mane v. State of Maharashtra].

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra granted bail to a man in custody since April 2017 in a case registered by Maharashtra Police in December 2016.

"We have failed to comprehend as to why the charges could not be framed and trial commenced by the Sessions Court till now. It has been almost seven and a half years that the appellant has been languishing in jail," the Court said.

The accused, Pradeep Pandurang Mane, booked under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, 1959, was denied bail by the Bombay High Court on April 16.

The High Court had reasoned that Mane was not entitled to be released on parity with a co-accused already on bail as he was the main assailant and a gang leader with many criminal antecedents.

However, the top court found that out of the six other cases against him, Mane had already been acquitted in two cases and the judgment was reserved in one other case.

It added that in the remaining cases - two are which are triable by the Magistrate - he has already been granted bail by the courts.

While questioning the delay in framing of charges, the Court remarked that an accused cannot be kept behind the bars indefinitely.

"Keeping an accused behind bars and without trying him for the offence alleged against him, for long, itself is in breach of the procedure established by law and amounts to a punishment invading the right to life of such an accused," it added.

It therefore proceeded to grant bail to Mane.

"The long incarceration of the appellant, non-framing of charges and the prospect of imminent conclusion of the trial being bleak, we are of the considered opinion that he may be admitted to an order for bail," it reasoned.

Advocates Sachin Patil, Sandeep Magar, Geo Joseph, Risvi Muhammad and Rishabh Agarwal appeared for the accused.

Advocates Shrirang B Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for State of Maharashtra.

[Read Order]

An appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court challenging a Karnataka High Court verdict which had held that shouting “Jai Shri Ram” inside a mosque does not attract the offence of outrage the religious feelings/ sentiments [Haydhar Ali CM v. Keerthan Kumar and Others].

The Karnataka High Court had made the observation on September 13 while quashing criminal proceedings against two men booked on allegations that they insulted others' religious beliefs.

The appeal challenging this verdict is listed before a Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta for hearing on December 16.

The case involves allegations that two residents of Dakshin Kannada district, Keerthan Kumar and Sachin Kumar, entered a local mosque named Badnya Jumma Mashib last year and shouted “Jai Shri Ram."

The two also allegedly threatened that "they will not allow Bearys (Muslims) to live in peace."

Both men were booked by the local police under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including Section 295A (acts intended to outrage religious feelings), 447 (trespass), and 506 (criminal intimidation), following a complaint registered against them.

The two later moved the Karnataka High Court seeking the quashing of the criminal case against them.

On September 13 this year, Justice M Nagaprasanna of the High Court granted them relief and quashed the case, observing:

“Section 295A deals with deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs. It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class. When the complainant himself states that Hindu – Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony."

The High Court also found that the alleged act in this case did not have any adverse effect on public order.

“The Apex Court holds that any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC. The acts that have no effect on bringing out peace or destruction of public order will not lead to an offence under Section 295A of the IPC," the High Court added.

The complainant in the case has now challenged this before the Supreme Court.

His plea before the Supreme Court says that the High Court took a very pedantic view of the matter, and that its approach was against Supreme Court judgments on how to deal with petitions to quash criminal cases.

"It is submitted that the test to be employed in adjudicating a quashing petition is not whether the ingredients of offences alleged in the FIR are met, but whether the allegations made in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences," he contends.

It is his case that the allegations in this case, at face value, indicates the commission of various offences. He has also contended that the Supreme Court itself has repeatedly deprecated the quashing of criminal proceedings at the stage of investigation.

"This Hon'ble Court (Supreme Court) has time and again held that the inherent powers under Section 482 (CrPC) cannot be used to stifle legitimate prosecution, particularly when the investigation is ongoing," the plea said.

Moreover, the complainant has also disagreed with the High Court's observations regarding whether shouting 'Jai Shri Ram' in a mosque would constitute an insult to a religious class.

"For reasons best known to itself, (the High Court) has adopted a very peculiar approach and rendered a finding that "It is ununderstandable as to how if someone shouts 'Jai Sriram' it would outrage the religious feeling of any class", completely ignoring the fact that such utterances were made by the accused by trespassing into the Mosque ... along with threatening the Muslim community. It is most deferentially submitted that such uncalled for and unjustified observations by the High Court will give a fillip to anti social elements, who in recent times have been seen to be resorting to such religious and devotional chants to justify gruesome crimes like mob lynching and targeted attacks upon the minorities across the country," the plea said.

The plea has been filed through advocate Javedur Rahman.

There cannot be a complete ban on political activities in colleges but harmful practices arising out of student politics should be eliminated, the Kerala High Court orally observed on Friday [Ajoy LS v State of Kerala & ors and connected cases].

A Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and P Krishna Kumar was hearing writ petitions that have sought a ban on student politics in colleges.

"Student politics need not be banned; politricks should be banned ... Politics where teachers and students are hurting each other, strikes are being done obstructing classes that should be banned. Prohibition of political activities cannot be done by us," Justice Mustaque remarked during the hearing.

Justice Mustaque added that students should actually be encouraged to learn about politics and engage in it meaningfully.

"Everyone should know about politics, they should be engaged in political rights, civil rights and engage in debates. What is now happening in campuses is a different thing. Every citizen of this country should be taught about politics. That impression of politics as bad should not be there, as everyone should inculcate the good values of politics," he said.

The judge also emphasised on the need for strict action against violence on campuses and the disruption of classes due to strikes by student political wings.

"You (petitioner) can highlight the incidents which should not recur in campuses and which should be curbed, we can see to that. Police need not wait for Principal's consent when there is a law-and-order situation happening in a college. Your prayer for prohibition on student politics cannot be granted. What all is being done in the name of religion, (but) we cannot ban a religion. Similarly, what all is done in the name of politics, we cannot ban politics. Counsel, please highlight the vandalism that is repeatedly happening all over the State and what can be done," he said.

Three petitions have been filed in the matter, including a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea by a retired High Court employee named N Prakash.

The petition was filed in the wake of a violent clash between the Student Federation of India (SFI) and Kerala Students Union (KSU) at Maharajas College, Ernakulam in January 2024, when an SFI student was stabbed. The incident also led to the temporary closure of the college.

The petitioners have raised concern over such recurring incidents while calling for a State-wide ban on student politics.

The Court on Friday indicated that it is not in favour of a blanket ban on student politics, but decided to examine if there are ways to curb political violence on college campuses.

It has called for the State's response in the matter, and posted the case for further hearing on January 23, 2025.

"Government Pleader is directed to file a statement in response to the writ petition within three weeks. List this matter for further consideration on 23.01.2025," the Court ordered.

The Competition Commission of India (CCI) has ordered several table tennis associations to cease and desist from anti-competitive practices such as barring players from participating in allegedly unauthorised tournaments. 

The order passed by a coram headed by Chairperson Ravneet Kaur comes after an investigation into information filed by the TT Friendly Super League Association (TTFSL), a non-profit organisation promoting the sport.

TTFSL had filed an information in 2021 stating that Suburban Table Tennis Association (TSTTA), Maharashtra State Table Tennis Association (MSTTA), Table Tennis Federation of India (TTFI) and Gujarat State Table Tennis Association (GSTTA) were abusing their dominant positions in the sport.

These allegations were premised on the fact that TSTTA had issued a notice discouraging players and clubs from participating in non-sanctioned tournaments, potentially harming smaller organisations like TTFSL. Certain clauses in the rules and regulations of these associations were found to restrict competition, limiting the number of tournaments and player participation.

CCI had prima facie said that these policies violated competition laws and ordered a probe by the Director General (DG), who found that these organisations had indeed violated the Competition Act, 2002. 

The CCI found that the TTFI, as the national governing body, held a dominant position in the market. Similarly, the state and district associations were found to be dominant in their respective regions.

The investigation revealed that the associations' rules and regulations had the effect of limiting the number of tournaments and preventing players from participating in non-sanctioned events.

According to CCI,  the associations used their dominant positions to impose unfair terms and conditions on players and clubs.

In light of these findings, the CCI has ordered the associations to stop engaging in anti-competitive practices. The associations have further been directed to amend their rules and regulations to ensure fair competition.

The CCI has refrained from imposing a monetary penalty, but instead issued a cease-and-desist order to the associations. It noted,

“Restrictive communications.. which are deemed anti-competitive were withdrawn. Furthermore, the OP (associations) have amended or removed restrictive clauses in their MoAs/Constitution/Byelaws including provisions that prohibited participation in unauthorized tournaments and imposed penalties on players and associations. Additionally, OP-3 issued a clarificatory circular advising its affiliates to avoid penalizing participants in unaffiliated events, reflecting a shift towards fostering open competition.”

While the associations have taken steps to address the issues raised, the CCI has warned that any future violations could result in more severe penalties, including fines for both the organisations and their individual officers.

The TT associations were represented by Advocates Karan Pratap Singh, Tarandeep Singh, Karan Singh Chandhiok, Mehul Parti, Uday Bali, Saumya Sunidhi, Prateek Kumar and Arjun Suresh.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court recently clarified that while the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can instruct a Public Prosecutor on the facts of a case, it cannot instruct Public Prosecutors on how to argue a case or what to do or not do as an officer of the court [Zeeshan Haider v. Directorate of Enforcement].

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih made the observation in a case where it had noticed a special court's direction to the ED to instruct prosecutors not to oppose a bail plea if it is found that the trial has been delayed because of the ED's conduct.

The Supreme Court observed that the special court likely meant to say that the ED should ask prosecutors to be fair in their submissions if there is a delay in trial. However, the Bench added that this cannot be construed to mean that a Public Prosecutor is prevented from opposing the bail plea if it is found that the ED is not at fault.

"Enforcement Directorate or its Director can give instructions to a Public Prosecutor on facts of the case. However, Enforcement Directorate or its Director cannot give any directions or instructions to the Public Prosecutor about what he ought to do or ought not to do before the Court as an officer of the Court," the Court added in its December 11 order.

The case before the Court concerned Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir (appellants), two of those accused in a money-laundering case in which Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MLA Amanatullah Khan is the main accused.

The ED had claimed that Amanatullah Khan purchased immovable properties in the name of benamidars, that is, Zeeshan Haider and Daud Nasir by concealing and suppressing the actual amount paid.

On December 11, the top court granted Haider and Daud bail after noting that the two accused had been in custody for over a year without charges being framed in the money laundering case against them.

Notably, back in November, while granting bail to a co-accused, a Delhi court had rapped ED for causing a delay of about five months in the trial.

The trial court had taken critical note that although the ED had an opportunity to admit its responsibility for violating the fundamental right of speedy trial by not opposing bail, it had opted to oppose the bail application with full vigor and vehemence.

The special court, therefore, added the following parting note:

"It is expected of Worthy Director that he shall issue appropriate instructions to the Ld. SPP’s not to oppose the bail plea where the delay of trial has been occasioned due to the conduct of ED.”

This too drew the attention of the Supreme Court while considering the bail pleas by Haider and Daud.

The top court proceeded to clarify that the trial court's observations should not be interpreted to mean that the ED can dictate how Public Prosecutors should conduct themselves in court.

"Perhaps what the learned Judge intended to was that when the Public Prosecutor is satisfied that the trial has been delayed on account of default or conduct on the part of Enforcement Directorate, the Public Prosecutor should take a fair stand. However, the aforesaid observations will not prevent Public Prosecutors from opposing a bail petition on the ground that act or omissions on the part of Enforcement Directorate are not responsible for the delay of trial," the Court said.

Senior Advocate Vikram Chaudhri, advocates Rajat Bhardwaj, Ankita M Bhardwaj, Kaustubh Khanna, Saurav Kekroda, Arveen Sekhon, Rishi Sehgal, Muskan Khurana, Sudhir Naagar, Manish Baidwan, Arun Kumar Nagar and Ankit Sharma, appeared for the appellants, Haider and Daud.

Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, advocates Zoheb Hussain, Annam Venkatesh, Arkaj Kumar, Vivek Gurnani, Sushil Raaja, Samrat Goswami, Animesh Upadhyay, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Aditi Singh, Anand Kirti and Deepika Gahlot, appeared for ED.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Friday held that a police official who lodges a false case against an individual cannot claim immunity from prosecution under the guise of official duty [Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay and Others].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra said protection of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be extended to such officers who misuse or abuse their powers.

Section 197 of the CrPC protects public servants from prosecution if they are accused of committing a crime while acting in discharge of their duties. It says that prior sanction must be obtained from the government for prosecuting such official.

"This Court has held in a legion of decisions that any misuse or abuse of powers by a public servant to do something that is impermissible in law like threatening to provide a tutored statement or trying to obtain signatures on a blank sheet of paper; causing the illegal detention of an accused; engaging in a criminal conspiracy to create false or fabricated documents; conducting a search with the sole object of harassing and threatening individuals, amongst others, cannot fall under the protective umbrella of Section 197 CrPC," the Court said.

Thus, the Court ruled that when a police official is accused of registering a false case, he cannot claim the benefit of Section 197 CrPC.

It can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same, the Court reasoned.

"On examining the quality of the act, it is evident that there exists no reasonable or rational nexus between , it follows that when a police official is said to have lodged a false case, he cannot claim that sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was required since it can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence or documents in connection with the same," it added.

It further said that the mere fact that a wrongful act such as registering a false case arose out of official duty does not automatically bring the act within the purview of Section 197 CrPC.

"Allowing so, would enable the accused to use their status as public servants as a facade for doing an objectionable, illegal and unlawful act and take undue advantage of their position," the Court said.

The Court made these observations while dealing with a case in which officials of Madhya Pradesh (MP) Police stood accused of registering a false case to create an alibi for a man accused of murder in Uttar Pradesh (UP).

On October 12 in 2007, a teacher Suman Prakash Yadav was allegedly killed by Surender Singh Gurjar, Veerbhan Gurjar, Ashok Dixit, Pappu Dixit, Sanjay Dixit and three others.

On the same day, MP Police arrested Ashok Dixit in a case under Excise Act for carrying 12 bottles of illegal foreign liquor. He was later released on bail the same day.

The UP Police later found that the Excise Act case was fabricated to create a false alibi for Ashok Dixit, a relative of one of the cops in MP.

In 2012, the trial court in Firozabad found 12 accused including Ashok Dixit guilty of murder. Meanwhile, the issue related to prosecution of the MP police officials continued to remain pending.

The Allahabad High Court in 2018 quashed the criminal proceedings against them for lack of sanction under Section 197 CrPC. The murder victim's brother then moved the Supreme Court.

The top court opined that no cogent evidence was presented by three accused police officials to support their bonafides.

"So far as the respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively are concerned, if the case of the prosecution that they had also played a dubious role in registering a false case is correct then the requirement of sanction would not be a sin qua non for proceeding further with the criminal proceedings. However, the defence must be given an opportunity to rebut the same by leading appropriate evidence," it said.

With regard to the fourth police official, the Court said there would be no requirement for sanction since he was not acting in the discharge of his official duty since he was not even posted at Murar Police Station, Gwalior where the Excise Act case was registered.

Concluding that the High Court should not have been quashed the proceedings at such a preliminary stage, the top court said,

"In case where there is a legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC is required or not, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the CJM, Firozabad had rightly taken cognizance of the two charge sheets vide its orders dated 24.11.2008 and 10.08.2009 respectively. The High Court committed an error in failing to consider this aspect while quashing the proceedings in Case No. 67 of 2008 and 67A of 2009 respectively vide its impugned order".

While directing the trial court to proceed with the trial, the Supreme Court clarified that if the evidence in future suggests that the Excise Act case was indeed registered in the discharge of official duty and was not bogus, the trial may be stayed for want of sanction.

"The question of sanction only qua respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 respectively is left open to be appropriately decided by the Trial Court at a suitable stage, in accordance with the law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made in this order as well as in the order passed by the High Court. As these proceedings arise from a case registered more than 16 years ago, the Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial & conclude it expeditiously preferably within one year from today," it added.

Senior Advocate Ravindra Singh appeared for the appellant.

Senior Advocate R Basant appeared for respondents.

[Read Judgment]