Supreme Court Quashes Madras High Court Order on Land Grabbing Cases Transfer (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 228

Judges: M.R. Shah J. and B.V. Nagarathna J.

Can a High Court transfer hundreds of cases from special courts to regular courts after the main case has been already disposed of? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case concerning land grabbing cases in Tamil Nadu. The court examined the legality of orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras directing the transfer of numerous cases from Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases to jurisdictional Magistrate Courts. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The State of Tamil Nadu established 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in 2011 to address land grabbing issues and constituted Special Courts to handle these cases. However, the validity of the government orders (G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O.(Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011) that created these cells and courts was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The High Court set aside these government orders in 2015, but the Supreme Court stayed this decision, allowing the Special Courts to continue functioning. During the pendency of the matter before the Supreme Court, a complainant filed a petition in the High Court seeking transfer of his case from the Special Court to a regular court. The High Court not only transferred that case but also went on to transfer 864 other cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts, based on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, after the original petition was already disposed of.

The Registrar General of the High Court, being in a quandary regarding the implementation of these orders, filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Madras initially set aside the government orders establishing the Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases. The Supreme Court, however, stayed this order, allowing the Special Courts to continue functioning. Subsequently, in a disposed of matter, the High Court directed the transfer of one case and then, based on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, transferred approximately 864 cases from the Special Courts to jurisdictional Magistrate Courts. The Registrar General of the High Court, facing difficulties in implementing these orders, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that while the High Court possesses inherent powers, these powers cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner or beyond the scope of the section. The Supreme Court also considered the effect of its own interim order staying the High Court’s judgment, which had the effect of keeping the Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases functional.

Arguments

The High Court, through its Registrar General, argued that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge were beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable. The High Court contended that the orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 were passed in a disposed of matter, and that too, on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, without any of the affected parties being present before the Court. The High Court also argued that the transfer of cases was in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim order.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was:

✓ Whether the High Court can pass orders transferring cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts in a disposed matter, especially when such orders are passed on a ‘special mentioning’ and in violation of an interim order of the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or books in its judgment. The authorities considered were:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court clarified that while the High Court has inherent powers, these must be exercised within the confines of the law and not in a sweeping manner.

✓ Interim order of the Supreme Court dated 27.02.2015: The Court emphasized that the High Court’s orders directly contradicted the Supreme Court’s interim order, which had allowed the Special Courts to continue functioning.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by procedural impropriety and the need to maintain judicial discipline. The Court emphasized that the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by passing orders in a disposed matter based on a ‘special mentioning’, and that too, in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim order. The Court was also concerned about the implications of such orders on the administration of justice and the need for High Courts to be mindful of the consequences of their orders.

Logical Reasoning:

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s actions to be procedurally incorrect and in violation of its own interim order. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner or beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section. The Court noted that the High Court had become *functus officio* after disposing of the original petition and could not have passed further orders in the same matter. The Court also deprecated the practice of passing orders on a ‘special mentioning’, especially in a disposed of matter.

The Supreme Court stated:

“The procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge for passing orders dated 27.08.2019 and 29.08.2019 directing to transfer 864 cases from the Special Courts in different districts to the concerned jurisdictional Courts is unknown to law.”

“The practice of passing such orders on a ‘special mentioning’ that too, in a disposed of matter is to be deprecated.”

“Though the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are wide and are in the nature of inherent power yet, the said power cannot be exercised suo motu in a sweeping manner and beyond the contours of what is stipulated under the said Section.”

Key Takeaways

• High Courts must be circumspect while exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Orders cannot be passed in a disposed matter, especially on a ‘special mentioning’, without proper procedure.
• Orders passed by High Courts should not violate interim orders of the Supreme Court.
• The judgment reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to procedural norms.
• The ruling clarifies the limits of the High Court’s inherent powers and emphasizes the need for judicial restraint.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019 & 29.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The Court directed that the cases be reverted to the Special Courts and clarified that this decision is subject to the final outcome of the pending Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot pass orders transferring cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts in a disposed matter, especially when such orders are passed on a ‘special mentioning’ and in violation of an interim order of the Supreme Court. This judgment reinforces the principle that High Courts must exercise their inherent powers judiciously and within the bounds of law and procedure.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of procedural correctness and judicial discipline. By quashing the High Court’s orders, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the principle that High Courts must not act beyond their jurisdiction, especially in matters that have already been disposed of. The judgment serves as a reminder to High Courts to exercise their inherent powers with caution and to be mindful of the consequences of their orders. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures that the Special Courts for Land Grabbing Cases continue to function as intended, pending the final outcome of the related appeals.