KANUBHAI BRAHMBHATT versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 314 · Decided: 18-02-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KANUBHAIBRAHMBHA1T 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT 
FEBRUARY 18, 1987 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32-Writ Petition-Filing 
of-Sometimes reasons good and substantial exist to direct writ peti-
tioner to approach High Court in First instance-Faith to be inspired in 
the hierarchy of courts. 
Practice & Procedure, Supreme Court-W"it petition-Filing 
of-Litigant to be directed to approach High Court if good and substan-
tial reasons exist-Faith to be inspired in the hierarchy of courts. 
In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
D 
India, the Court found that good and substantial reasons existed for 
directing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the 
first instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straight-
away. While directing so, this Court, 
HELD: 1. If Supreme Court takes upon itself to do everything 
E 
which even the High Court can do, this Court will not be able to do what 
this Court alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and 
other provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There 
is no reason to assume !hall the concerned High Court will not do 
justice. Or that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains 
Writ Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly 
F 
instead of appraoching the ·concerned High Court in the first instance, 
tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be instituted 
in this Court directly. The inevitable result will be that the arrears 
pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises exclusive 
jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarming pro-
portions. [3168-D] 
G 
2. It is as important to clo justice at this level, as to inspire confi-
dence in the litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High 
Court level, and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of 
Courts and the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And 
this objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the 
H High Courts by directing the litigants to approach the High Courts in 
314 
I 
~ 
•
K. BRAHMBNATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR. J.] 
315 
the first instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present 
one are instituted in the High Courts, there is a likelihood of the same A 
being disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account 
of the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. [316E-G I 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1986. 
B 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). 
By post. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THAKKAR, J. Reasons, good and substantial, exist for direct-
C 
~ ing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the first 
instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straightaway. 
And these need to be spelled out. 
An illustration may tell more effectively, what otherwise may not 
be told as effectively, and perhaps, only with some embarrassment. 
Suppose there is only one National Hospital established especially for 
performing open-heart surgery which cannot be performed elsewhere 
in any of the eighteen Regional Hospitals. What will happen to the 
patients needing such surgery, if the National Hospital which alone is 
specially equipped for this type of surgery, throws its doors wide open 
also for patients suffering from other ailments who can be treated by 
any and every one of the eighteen Regional Hospitals? More parti-
cularly when the patients already admitted for such surgery by the 
National Hospital are already lying unattended to on its floors, and in 
D 
E 
1 
its corridors, for an unconscionably long time? Showing sympathy for 
-t a patient with other than a heart problem who can also be treated 
equally effectively, and perhaps much more quickly, may well consti-
tute cruelty to the heart patients who can be treated only by the 
National Hospital established especially and exclusively for the treat-
ment of such patients. Will it not be more merciful to all concerned (by 
being firm enough) to tell those suffering from other than heart prob-
lems to go to Regional Hospitals, instead of insisting on being treated G 
at the National Hospital, which also can of course treat them, but only 
F 
at the cost of neglecting the heart patients who have nowhere else to 
go? More so as the patients going to the Regiona

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