LexGIRLSH KUMAR SUNEJA versus C.B.L.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 544
GIRlSH KUMAR SUNEJA
v.
C.B.l ..
(Criminal Appeal No. 1137 of2017)
JULY 13, 2017
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
A. K. SIKRI, JJ.J
Constitution of India:
Art. 136 r/w Art. 142 - Exclusion ofjurisdiction of the High
Court in Coal Block jlllocation matters - Supreme Court in the Coal
Block Allocation cayes passed order dated 25.07.14 that any prayer
which would impede the progress in the investigation/trial of the
cases was to be made only to Supreme C01lrt - Special Judge hearing
D . criminal cases pertaining to illegal allocation of coal blocks, issued
direction to frame charges against the appellant - Challenge to.
before High Court - Petition dismissed on the ground of non-
maintainabi!ity in view of the order dated 25. 07.14 - Appeal before
Supreme Court to recall or revisit the order dated 25.07.14 on 1he
ground that the appellants were denied access to justice - Held:
E Such an order was held permissible 11/Art. 136 rlw Art.142, by the
Supreme Court in· **Shahid Balwa case, considering the width and
ambit of the investigation and also the larger public interest and to
ensure that progress in the trial was not hampered - Jn view thereof
and the issue having alreac(v been agitated before the Supreme Court
F and negatived in another case, the order dated 25.07.14 need not
be revisited or modified - .Arts. 226, 227 - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - s.482.
Arts. 226 and 227-,- Order by this Court that any prayer for
stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial of the coal
block a/location cases to be made only to this Court - Case of the
G appellants that order passed by this Court prohibited them from
approaching the High Court u/Arts. 226 and 227 - Held: Jurisdiction
of High Court u/Arts.226 and 22 7 cannot be curtailed, yet
extraordinary situations could arise where it would be advisable
for High Court to decline. to interfere - This Court can pass an
H
544
GIRISH KUMAR SUNEJA v. C.B.l.
545
order that in a certain identified category of cases, the High Court · A
ought' not to interfere and this Court would take a decision in the
matter in larger public interest.
·
Art. 14 - Equality before law'- Coal block allocation cases
treated as a separate class having a separate procedure, thereby
denying to them equal protection of the law - Violation of' Art. 14 -
B
Held: it is necessary to treat the coal block i::ases differentially since
they form a unique identifiable categmy - Classification is certainly
not arbitrary, on the contrary, it is in public interest and for the
public good - Classification being identifiable and clear, there is ·
. no violation of Art. 14.
c
Art. 21 - Right to life and liberty - Order by this Court that
any prayer for stay or impeding 'the progress in the investigation/
trial of the coal block allocation cases to be made only to this Court,
thus, restricted right to life and liberty guaranteed by Art. 21 -
Violation of Art. 21 - Held: No procedural safeguard denied to the
appellants and it is a complete misnomer to say that any statuto1y D
right has been restricted or constricted by a judicial order - Remedies
available to the appellants continue to be available to them except
that the forum shifted from the High Court to this Court in larger
public interest,
Arts. 32 and 142 - Order of this Court that any prayer for
stay or impeding the progress in the investigation/trial of the coal
block allocation cases to be made only t~ this Court - Plea that this
order deprived appellants of their Nght to' access)1stice - Held:
Appellants not denuded of their rights - it. is only' that their rights
have been placed in the proper perspective and have been enabled
to exercise their. rights be.fore ~nother ./orum . . · . '·
.
'
.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: ..
ss. 397 and 482 - Right to file a revision petition - Order by
this Court that anyprayer.fo'r stay or impeding the progress in the
E
F
-...
investigation/triiil of ii1e coal block allocation;· ca~es to be inade
G
only to this Court and no othei· Court shall ~ntertain any sucli
request -
Appellant:~ case that they have a right to .file a revisi<>n
pefi!.!.,oti against orders passed by th~ Special Ju,d~e; but the order
passe{J.by this Court effectively preve'!ts the High CourtJrom
...
H
546
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 9 S.C.R.
A entertaining any such petition - Held: This does not mean that
appellant have no remeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.