No case is small for Supreme Court: CJI Chandrachud

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, December 16

Two days after Law Minister Kiren Rijiju said the Supreme Court should not be hearing bail applications and frivolous PILs when pendency of cases was so high, a Bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Friday said, “No case is small for the Supreme Court”.

“If we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief, then what are we doing here? What is the Supreme Court doing? The Supreme Court exists to hear the cry of such petitioners. We burn the midnight oil for such cases,” said the Bench which also included Justice PS Narasimha.

Describing it as an “absolutely shocking case”, the Bench allowed an appeal filed by Iqram–a man from Uttar Pradesh—convicted of electricity theft and awarded nine consecutive sentences running into 18 years. He had already served three years in jail. The Allahabad High Court should have set it right, it noted.

“All said and done, you can’t elevate the theft of electricity to murder”, the CJI said, ordering that the sentences in the nine cases against the appellant would run concurrently; and not consecutively.

Terming personal liberty as a “precious and inalienable right”, it asserted that by attending to grievances against its violation the Supreme Court performed its plain constitutional duty, obligation and function—no more and no less.

Rijiju had on Thursday said, “If Supreme Court of India starts hearing bail applications, if Supreme Court of India starts hearing all frivolous PILs, definitely it will cause lots of extra burden on the Hon’ble Court itself, because Supreme Court by and large is treated as a Constitutional court.”

“When you sit here, no case is too small for the Supreme Court and no case is too big…Because we are here to answer the call of conscience; and the cry for liberty of citizens… That is why we are here. These are not one off cases. When you sit here and burn the midnight oil, you realise everyday there is one case or another like that”, the CJI said.

“The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the court was not to do so, a serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of the citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention”, it said,

“The history of this court (SC) indicates that it’s in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of the moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this court to protect the liberty of the citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in the Constitution.

“The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognised by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less”, the top court said.