Supreme Court clarifies maintainability of intra-court appeals in corruption cases: Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana (21 March 2017)

Date of the Judgment: 21 March 2017
Citation: (2017) INSC 238
Judges: Dipak Misra, J., A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. (authored by Dipak Misra, J.)

Can a High Court’s decision to quash a corruption inquiry be challenged in an intra-court appeal? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, clarifying the scope of appellate jurisdiction in cases involving criminal proceedings initiated due to recommendations by the Lokayukta. This judgment delves into the intricacies of whether such cases fall under “criminal jurisdiction,” thereby impacting the maintainability of appeals.

Case Background

The case began with a reference by the Chief Secretary of Haryana to the Lokayukta, Haryana, concerning allegations of bribery related to the grant of Change of Land Use (CLU) licenses. The Lokayukta initiated an inquiry, requesting public input and materials, including video evidence.

The appellant was issued a notice to provide an explanation. Subsequently, a sting operation was conducted, and its findings were submitted to the Lokayukta. The appellant, in response, presented a forensic report indicating that the audio and video recordings were not authentic. Despite this, the Lokayukta recommended the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant challenged this recommendation in the High Court, arguing that the authenticity of the video evidence was not verified and that the action taken was illegal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court initially directed the State to inquire into the authenticity of the CD and file a status report, referencing the judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, an FIR was registered. The Single Judge of the High Court, after considering various reports and legal aspects, quashed the Lokayukta’s recommendation and the FIR, concluding that the CD lacked authenticity.

The State appealed this decision to a Division Bench of the High Court, which condoned a delay of 85 days and stayed the Single Judge’s order. The Division Bench later upheld the stay and directed the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising IPS officers from outside Haryana.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002. Specifically, Section 8(1) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 empowers the Chief Secretary to refer matters to the Lokayukta for inquiry. Section 14 of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002 allows the Lokayukta to issue notices to individuals for explanations.

The Letters Patent, particularly Clause 10, which is applicable to the erstwhile Punjab & Lahore High Courts, governs the intra-court appeals. It specifies that no appeal lies against a judgment passed by a Single Judge in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court also considered the nature of the powers of the Lokayukta, referring to the judgment in Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna & others, which clarified that the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta act as quasi-judicial authorities with investigative functions.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The primary contention of the appellant was that the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the Division Bench was not maintainable because the Single Judge had exercised criminal jurisdiction.
• The appellant argued that the High Court’s order, being a challenge to a criminal proceeding, should be considered under criminal jurisdiction, barring an intra-court appeal.
• Reliance was placed on various authorities to support the argument that orders passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction are not appealable under the Letters Patent.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State contended that the writ petition was registered as a civil writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari, making the exercise of jurisdiction civil in nature.
• The State argued that the Lokayukta is a quasi-judicial body, and actions taken at its instance should fall under civil jurisdiction, not criminal.
• The State asserted that the Single Judge’s exercise of power was under Article 226 of the Constitution, making it amenable to an intra-court appeal.
• Reliance was placed on Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna & others to emphasize the quasi-judicial status of the Lokayukta.

The innovativeness of the argument by the appellant lies in the fact that it emphasized on the nature of the jurisdiction being criminal, rather than the nature of the body whose order was challenged.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the LPA preferred before the Division Bench was maintainable, considering that the learned Single Judge had exercised criminal jurisdiction.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna & others [ (2013) 3 SCC 117 ]* to understand the nature of functions of Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta as quasi-judicial authorities with investigative functions.
• The Supreme Court relied on South Asia Industries Private Ltd v. S.B. Sarup Singh and others [ (1965) 2 SCR 756 ]* to clarify that an appeal lies against a Single Judge’s judgment unless expressly excluded.
• The Supreme Court relied on Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra and others [ (2005) 2 SCC 591 ]* to hold that State Legislatures have the competence to amend the Letters Patent.
• The Supreme Court relied on Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay & another v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and others [ (1966) 1 SCR 190 ]* to distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings, defining civil proceedings as those enforcing civil rights and criminal proceedings as those leading to sentences.
• The Supreme Court relied on Umaji Keshao Meshram & others v. Radhikabai & another [ 1986 (Supp.) SCC 401 ]* to clarify that an appeal lies from a Single Judge’s judgment unless barred by statute or the Letters Patent itself.
• The Supreme Court relied on Ashok K. Jha and others v. Garden Silk Mills Limited and another [ (2009) 10 SCC 584 ]* to stress that the nature of jurisdiction invoked and the true nature of the order passed are vital for determining maintainability.
• The Supreme Court relied on Radhey Shyam and another v. Chhabi Nath and others [ (2015) 5 SCC 423 ]* to hold that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 and overruled the view in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai.
• The Supreme Court relied on Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat and others [ (2015) 9 SCC 137 ]* to reiterate that maintainability depends on pleadings, nature of the order, and jurisdictional perspectives.
• The Supreme Court relied on Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and others [ AIR 1955 SC 233 ]* to explain that certiorari is issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction or illegal actions in the exercise of jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court relied on State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others [ AIR 1992 SC 604 ]* to discuss the circumstances under which the High Court could exercise power under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC.
• The Supreme Court relied on Sanjeev Rajendrabhai Bhatt v. State of Gujarat & others [ (2000) 1 Gujarat Law Reports 206 ]* to hold that proceedings under Article 226 arising from orders under the CrPC are criminal proceedings under the Letters Patent.
• The Supreme Court relied on C.S. Agarwal v. State & others [ 2011 (125) DRJ 241 (FB) ]* to state that proceedings under Article 226 concerning criminal matters are original criminal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court relied on Vipul Gupta v. State & Ors [ 208 (2014) DLT 468 (DB) ]* to hold that when a decision relates to a criminal case, the High Court is exercising criminal jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the view expressed in Adishwar Jain v. Union of India and another [ 2006 Cri.LJ 3193 ]* and clarified that a Habeas Corpus petition for preventive detention is a civil proceeding concerning fundamental rights.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the nature of the proceedings before the Single Judge, which were deemed to be criminal due to the potential for criminal prosecution following the Lokayukta’s recommendation. The Court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in such cases should not be seen as a civil matter simply because it involves a quasi-judicial body. The core issue was the potential for criminal consequences, which placed the matter squarely within the ambit of criminal jurisdiction, barring an intra-court appeal under the Letters Patent.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The Court rejected the argument that the quasi-judicial nature of the Lokayukta’s proceedings transformed the matter into a civil issue. The focus remained on the potential for criminal consequences, which is the defining factor for determining criminal jurisdiction.

The Court also emphasized that the nomenclature of a writ petition does not determine the nature of the jurisdiction exercised. What matters is the substance of the relief sought and the nature of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“The conception of ‘criminal jurisdiction’ as used in Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is not to be construed in the narrow sense. It encompasses in its gamut the inception and the consequence. It is the field in respect of which the jurisdiction is exercised, is relevant.”

“The contention that solely because a writ petition is filed to quash an investigation, it would have room for intra-court appeal and if a petition is filed under inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, there would be no space for an intra-court appeal, would create an anomalous, unacceptable and inconceivable situation.”

“When we are required to consider a bar or non-permissibility, we have to appreciate the same in true letter and spirit. It confers jurisdiction as regards the subject of controversy or nature of proceeding and that subject is exercise of jurisdiction in criminal matters.”

Key Takeaways

• Intra-court appeals are not maintainable against a High Court order passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction, even if the order is passed in a writ petition under Article 226.
• The nature of the proceedings, i.e., whether it is civil or criminal, is determined by the potential consequences of the proceedings and not by the nature of the body whose order is being challenged.
• The nomenclature of a writ petition does not determine the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court; the substance of the relief sought is the key factor.
• This judgment clarifies that cases involving potential criminal prosecution, even if initiated by a quasi-judicial body, fall under criminal jurisdiction, barring intra-court appeals.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench’s order and granted liberty to the State to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge in accordance with law.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a High Court order passed in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction, even if the order is passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This decision clarifies the scope of “criminal jurisdiction” under the Letters Patent, emphasizing the nature of the proceedings rather than the nature of the body whose order is challenged.

This judgment has overruled the view taken by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gangaram Kandaram v. Sunder Chikha Amin and others, which had held that exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of a criminal proceeding was not in exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ram Kishan Fauji vs. State of Haryana clarifies that an intra-court appeal is not maintainable against a High Court order that quashes a criminal proceeding, even if the order is made under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the nature of the proceedings, specifically whether they are criminal in nature, is the deciding factor, not the quasi-judicial nature of the body whose order is challenged. This decision reinforces the limitations on intra-court appeals in criminal matters as outlined in the Letters Patent.