JASBIR SINGH versus ST ATE OF PUNJAB

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 11-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JASBIR SINGH 
v. 
ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
OCTOBER 11. 2006 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 227 and 235-Administrative Judge of High Court-Powers-
C Scope of-Administrative Judge visiting district jail on inspection programme-
Receiving bail application of an under-trial and directing the Sessions Judge 
to grant him bail-Held, if any application of bail is received by the 
Administrative Judge, proper course is to send the same to the court concerned 
without making any comments on the merits of the case-Jn the course of 
D inspection. Inspecting Judge is not supposed to pass any judicial order and 
he has no power to interfere with judicial functions of subordinate courts in 
individual cases-Power of Superintendence exercised over subordinate courts 
and Tribunals does not i111p61 that High Court can intervene in judicial jimctions 
of lower judiciary or influence subordinate judiciat)' to pass any order or 
judgment in a particular manner, as that would amount to interfering with 
E independence of subordinate judiciary-Powers of Inspecting Judge while an 
inspection-Explained-Allocation of business in High Court-Explained-
Administration of justice-Independence of judicim)1--Judicial discipline. 
Appellant's application for bail was pending before the Sessions 
Judge. Meanwhile the Administrative Judge of the High Court visited the 
F District Jail on inspection programme. The appellant made an application 
for bail before the Administrative Judge. The Administrative Judge 
directed the Sessions Judge to release the accused on bail. Accordingly 
the accused was granted bail. Thereupon a complaint was made alleging 
mala fide in granting the bail, and cancellation of bail was sought. 
G Consequently, the Administrative Judge cancelled the bail. Aggrieved, the 
accused filed the present appeal. 
The appellant-accused was released on bail. However, during the 
hearing of the appeal, it came to the notice of the Court that there has 
been a constant practice of the Inspecting/ Administrative Judges of the 
H 
JM 
JASBIR SINGH v. STA TE OF PUNJAB 
175 
High Court concerned to receive bail applications from inmates of jail and A 
to grant bail or direct the Sessions Judge to grant bail or direct the 
applications to be dealt with in accordance with law. 
On the question as to what is the width and amplitude of the power 
of superintendence over subordinate courts and whether it authorizes the 
Inspecting Judges to transact any judicial work, which is in the domain B 
of the subordinate courts, 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l.I. The power of superintendence over all the subordinate 
courts and tribunals is given to the High Court under Article 227 of the C 
Constitution. This extraordinary power can only be used by the High 
Courts to ensure that the subordinate courts function within the limits of 
their authority. The High Court cannot interfere with the judicial functions 
of a subordinate Judge. Even while invoking the provisions of Article 227 
of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such D 
powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the 
subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of 
superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does 
not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of 
the lower judiciary or influence the subordinate judiciary to pass any order 
or judgment in a particular manner. The independence of the subordinate E 
courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount 
importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the 
discharge of their judicial functions. The independence of the judiciary 
has been considered as a part of the basic structure of the Constitution 
and such independence is postulated not only from the Executive, but also F 
from all other sources of pressure. (180-C-E; 182-C-E] 
Wmyam Singh v. Amarnath, AIR (1954) SC 215; Timbak v. Ram 
Chandra, AIR (1977) SC 1222; Mohd Yunus v. Mohd Mustaqim, AIR (1984) 
SC 38; State v. Navjot Sandhu, (20031 6 SCC 641 and S.P. Gupta v. Union 
of India, (1981 ( Supp. sec 87, relied on. 
G 
1.2. Article 235 of the Constitution gives power to the High Court 
to exercise control over the subordinate courts. This power has been 
specifically described in the Article in a comprehensive sense so as to 
include the powers of gener

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