Supreme Court Quashes Madras High Court Order on Transfer of Land Grabbing Cases (23 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 148

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

Can a High Court transfer a large number of cases from special courts to regular courts based on a ‘special mentioning’ in a matter that has already been decided? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, expressing serious concerns about the procedure adopted by the High Court of Judicature at Madras. This case revolves around the transfer of 864 land grabbing cases from special courts to jurisdictional courts, a move that was ultimately deemed improper by the Supreme Court. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna.

Case Background

The State of Tamil Nadu established 36 Anti Land Grabbing Special Cells in 2011 through G.O. (Ms) No. 423, dated 28.07.2011. Subsequently, Special Courts were constituted to handle land grabbing cases exclusively. However, the validity of this G.O. was challenged in the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

On 10.02.2015, the High Court set aside G.O. (Ms) No. 423 and G.O.(Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011, suggesting that the State Government enact a law similar to the A.P. Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, on 27.02.2015, stayed the High Court’s order, thereby reinstating the operation of G.O. No. 423 and G.O. No. 451 and the jurisdiction of the Special Courts. During the pendency of these appeals before the Supreme Court, a criminal petition was filed in the High Court seeking transfer of a case from the Special Court to a regular court.

Subsequently, the High Court, through a series of orders on 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019, and 29.08.2019, directed the transfer of 864 cases from the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts. These orders were passed based on ‘mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, even after the original petition was disposed of. This led to the present appeals 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. This decision was challenged before the Supreme Court, which stayed the High Court’s order. Subsequently, a single judge of the High Court, in a disposed of matter, directed the transfer of one case from the Special Court to a regular court. Following this, on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, the same judge ordered the transfer of 864 cases in total from the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts. These orders were passed in a disposed of matter without the presence of the parties involved in those 864 cases.

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 to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or to secure the ends of justice. The Supreme Court noted that though these powers are wide, they cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner or beyond the scope of what is stipulated under the said Section.

The relevant provision is:

“Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Saving of inherent power of High Court- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

Arguments

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, through the Registrar General, argued that the orders passed by the single judge of the High Court were without jurisdiction and unsustainable. The High Court contended that the orders directing the transfer of 864 cases were passed in a disposed of matter, based on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor, without any of the affected parties being present. The High Court also pointed out that the orders were in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim order that had stayed the High Court’s earlier decision to set aside the Government Orders establishing the Special Courts.

There were no arguments from the respondents mentioned in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

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

1. Whether the High Court could pass orders to transfer cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts in a disposed of matter, based on a ‘special mentioning’.

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 rely on any specific cases or books in this judgment. However, the court did consider the following:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: The Court discussed the scope of the inherent powers of the High Court under this section, emphasizing that it cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner.
• G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O.(Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011: The Court noted that these Government Orders, which established the Special Courts, were in operation due to the Supreme Court’s stay order.
• Interim order of the Supreme Court dated 27.02.2015 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015: The Court noted that the High Court’s orders were in violation of this interim order.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras and quashed the orders passed by the single judge of the High Court dated 05.08.2019, 27.08.2019, and 29.08.2019. The Court held that these orders were passed without jurisdiction and were unsustainable.

The authorities were viewed by the Court as follows:

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973*: The Court clarified that while the High Court has inherent powers, they cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner or beyond the scope of the provision.
• G.O. (Ms) No. 423 dated 28.07.2011 and G.O.(Ms) No. 451, Home (Court III) Department dated 11.08.2011*: The Court held that since the Supreme Court had stayed the High Court’s order setting aside these GOs, the Special Courts established under these GOs continued to have jurisdiction.
• Interim order of the Supreme Court dated 27.02.2015 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015*: The Court emphasized that the High Court’s orders were in direct violation of this interim order.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the procedural impropriety and the lack of jurisdiction in the High Court’s orders. The Court emphasized that orders passed in a disposed of matter, based on a ‘special mentioning’ without the presence of the affected parties, are not permissible. The Court also highlighted that the High Court had violated the Supreme Court’s interim order, which had reinstated the jurisdiction of the Special Courts. The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of the practice of passing such orders on a ‘special mentioning’ in a disposed of matter.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and procedural propriety. The Court focused on the fact that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by passing orders in a disposed of matter and violating the Supreme Court’s interim order. The Court’s decision was driven by the need to uphold the rule of law and ensure that judicial procedures are followed correctly.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations, as the procedural impropriety and the violation of the Supreme Court’s order were clear and unambiguous. The Court’s decision was based on established legal principles and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear: the High Court’s orders were unsustainable because they were passed in a disposed matter, based on a ‘special mentioning’, without the presence of the affected parties, and in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim order. The Court emphasized that such a practice is not permissible under the law.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The High Court passed orders in a disposed of matter.
• The orders were passed on a ‘special mentioning’ by the Additional Public Prosecutor.
• The affected parties were not present when the orders were passed.
• The orders were in violation of the Supreme Court’s interim order.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by passing such orders.

“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.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case, as both judges on the bench agreed on the decision.

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures and respecting the orders of higher courts. The decision also highlights the limitations of the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The judgment has significant implications for future cases involving the transfer of cases and the exercise of inherent powers by the High Courts.

Key Takeaways

• High Courts cannot transfer cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts in a disposed of matter based on a ‘special mentioning’.
• Orders passed in a disposed of matter without the presence of affected parties are unsustainable.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, cannot be exercised in a sweeping manner.
• High Courts must respect and adhere to the interim orders of the Supreme Court.
• The practice of passing orders on a ‘special mentioning’ in a disposed of matter is not permissible.

This judgment has significant implications for the functioning of the High Courts and the Special Courts. It clarifies the limitations on the High Court’s inherent powers and emphasizes the need to follow proper procedures. The judgment will likely impact future cases involving the transfer of cases and the exercise of inherent powers by the High Courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, directing the transfer of approximately 864 cases from the Special Courts to the jurisdictional courts. The Court directed that the cases should remain with the Special Courts, subject to the final outcome of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 6050-6078 of 2015.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the High Court cannot transfer cases from Special Courts to jurisdictional courts in a disposed of matter based on a ‘special mentioning’, especially when it violates the Supreme Court’s interim order. This judgment reinforces the principle that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are not unlimited and must be exercised within the boundaries of law and procedure. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment clarifies the scope and limitations of the High Court’s powers.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of procedural propriety and adherence to legal principles. The Court’s quashing of the High Court’s orders emphasizes that the High Court’s inherent powers cannot be exercised in a manner that undermines the rule of law or violates the orders of higher courts. This judgment serves as a reminder to the High Courts to be circumspect while exercising their powers and to ensure that all orders are passed in accordance with the established legal framework.