BIHAR LEGAL SUPPORT SOCIETY versus THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1987] 1 S.C.R. 295 · Decided: 19-11-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

_ 
... 
BIHAR LEGAL SUPPORT SOCIETY, 
A 
V.· 
THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA & ANR. 
NOVEMBER 19, 1986 
[P.N. BHAGWATI, C.J., RANGANATH MISRA, V. KHALID, G.L. 
B 
OZA AND M.M. DUTT, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 136-Special leave petitions against 
refusal of bail/ anticipatory bail-Immediate listing of-Within administrative 
jurisdiction of Chief Justice-Opportunity of mentioning to be availed of 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, s. 439-Bail/ anticipatory bail-
Refusal of-Special leave petition to Supreme Court-Urgent listing-Right 
to. 
c 
Judicial Reform-National Court of 4ppeal~Setting up-Necessity 
. 
• 
. 
. 
D 
of 
The writ petition, a sequel to the expeditious consideration of the bail 
application of two industrialists by this Court at a late night sitting on 5th 
September, 1986, solicited the same anxiety to perme~te the attitude and 
inclination of the Court in all matters where questions relating to the1iberty of 
citizens arose, and required that the special leave petitions of small men E 
against orders refusing bail must receive the same importance and should be 
taken up for consideration immediately. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court, 
HELD: The Supreme Court should not ordinarily, save in exceptional F 
cases, interfere with orders granting or refusing hail or anticipatory bail, 
because these are matters in which the High Court should. normally be final 
arbiter. It should interfere only in the limited class of cases where there is a 
substantial question oflaw involved which needs to be fmally laid at rest hy it, 
or where there is grave, blatant and atrocious miscarriage of justice. [299 E, A] · 
G 
It is not correct to say t~t this Court is not giving to the small men the 
same treatment as it is giving to the big industrialists. Their special leave 
petitions are as much entitled to consideration as that of the industrialists. The 
Court has always regarded the poor and the disadvantaged as entitled to 
preferential consideration than the rich and the affluent, the businessmen and 
~~~~m~ 
H 
295 
296 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The Court has evolved, a~ a matter of self discipline, certain norms to 
guide it in the exercise of its discretion in cases where special leave petitions are 
filed against orders granting or refusing bail or anticipatory bail. The question 
whether such petitions should he listed immediately or not is a question within 
the administrative jurisdiction of the Chief Justice and every such petitioner 
has an opportunity of mentioning the case before rum in that capacity for 
B urgent listing and where a case deserves urgent listing he makes an appropriate 
order. (299 C, 298 BC] 
The Supreme Court was never intended Ill be a regular court of appeal 
against orders made by the High Court or the ·Sessions Court or the 
Magistrates. It was created as an apex court for the purpose of laying down 
c the law for the entire country and extraordinary jurisdiction for granting 
special leave was conferred. upon it under Article 136 of the Constitution so 
tblit it could interfere whenever it found that the law was not correctly 
enunciated by lower courts or tn1Junals and tt was necessary to pronounce the 
correct law on the subject. This extraordinary jurisdiction could also be 
availed by the apex court for the purpose of correcting grave miscarriage of 
D justice, but such cases would be exceptional by their very nature. It is not every 
case where the apex court finds that some injustice has been done that it 
would grant special leave and interlere. That would be converting the apex 
court into a regular court of appeal and moreover hi· so doing it would soon 
be re~ucec! to a position where it will find itself unable to remedy any injustice 
at all on account of the tremendous backlog of cases which is bound to 
E accumulate. (298 D-F] 
It would be desirable to set up a National Court of Appeal which would 
be in a position to entertain appeals by special leave from the decisions of the 
High Courts and the Tribunals in the country in civil, criminal, revenue and 
labour cases and so far as the present apex court is concerned, it should 
F concern itself only with entertaining cases involving questions of 
,constitutional law and public iaw. (298 H] 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION; Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 540 of 1986 
G 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India) 
Jaya Narain Petitioner-in-person;' 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
H 
BHA

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.