New Delhi, May 7
The Supreme Court today
dismissed Gujarat Government’s plea for modification of its judgement regarding
the transfer of Best Bakery case for retrial in Maharashtra with severe
strictures against it, saying the government application in this regard is
“thoroughly misconceived.”
By examining the arguments raised by the Gujarat
Government, “lead to the inevitable conclusion that the application is
thoroughly misconceived, a sheer abuse of process of law and deserves to be
dismissed with exemplary costs. But we refrain from imposing any cost,” a Bench
of Mr Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Mr Justice Arijit Pasayat said.
Rejecting the
state government’s contention that the Supreme Court could not have expanded the
scope of its and complainant Zahira Sheikh’s appeals, while ordering the
transfer even when there was no specific prayer for this, the Bench said it was
done to ensure real justice.
The court said: “It has ample jurisdiction to fix
the place or the court which should undertake such exercise, keeping in view the
needs of justice in a given case with the objective of ensuring real,
substantial and proper justice, that too as an inevitable and necessary
corollary of the decision to set aside the judgement of courts below.”
“It is
beyond comprehension and not only unethical but impermissible for anyone to
expect that this Bench could not or ought not to have disposed of the appeals,
as they deserve and the manner in which interests of justice would require,” it
said.
The Supreme Court was entitled under Article 136 of the Constitution to
deal with a case, as warranted, necessitated and deserved under law, and “it is
pernicious for anyone to think or expect, as to how it should dispose it of, as
some would desire, partially or in a perfunctory manner.”
Also rejecting
Gujarat Government’s plea for expunging of the severe strictures against its
functionaries for failing to protect the lives of innocent people and provide
them justice, the court said: “This submission shows lack of awareness and want
of understanding, apparently deliberately feigned, about the functioning of the
appellate courts.”
Stating that the observations were not personal comments
against anyone but against the system, which failed to come up to the general
expectations, the court said it failed to understand how such observations would
have demoralising effect on the High Court, the trial courts or the justice
delivery system in the state.
Taking strong exception to such argument by the
state government, the court said: “The observations and criticism as to the
manner of disposal have to be soberly read with objectivity and not out of
context or even as a provision of an act or rule, with pre-conceived notions
apparently exposing virtually ones’ own hidden desires or agendas.”
The way
prosecution and the courts below dealt with the case, called for stronger
handling, but “we desisted from doing so, keeping in view a fond hope that all
those concerned without at least attempt to show better performance, greater
circumspection and desired awareness to do real, effective and substantial
justice,” the Bench said.
