Refusal to follow the direction given by the High Court would result in denial of justice and it would be destructive of basic principles in the administration of justice: Chhattisgarh High Court
If a law has been established by the High Court, it is binding and must be followed by all authorities involved, whether executive or judicial. The refusal to implement the High Court’s instruction would constitute a denial of justice and a violation of essential norms in the administration of justice. The judgment was passed by The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of State of Chhattisgarh V. Ram Swarup Rajwade [W.P.(Cr.)No.540/2020] by a Single Bench consisting of Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal.
The applicants have sought modification principally on the ground that the State of Chhattisgarh has notified the Special Court specified under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Section 28 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 for the trial of offences under the provisions of the POCSO Act.
Learned Counsel for the applicants, would submit singular contention that since the State Government by notification notified the special court under the SC-ST Act, 1989 for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act committed against children belonging to SC / ST category and the notification could not be brought to the notice of this Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition and passing of the order, therefore, notification is incorporated in the operative paragraph of the order passed for the sake of convenience and the MCC be allowed partly.
Learned Counsel for the respondent, would submit that the law declared by the highest authority of the State i.e. this Court is binding on all the authorities or tribunals under its superintendence and the State cannot ignore it, as it has not been challenged in the higher forum and the State is bound by the order and the order passed by this Court in the writ petition is binding. She would further submit that the effect of the order of the High Court in the writ petition cannot be diluted on the garb of modification of the order passed in the said writ petition.
Relying on the Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. State of W.B. and others has held that administrative instructions/circulars/orders cannot infiltrate onto an arena covered by judicial orders. It was observed by their Lordships as under: – “Administrative ipse dixit cannot infiltrate on to an arena which stands covered by judicial orders.”
While rejecting the petition the learned court observed that “it is well settled that the law declared by the High Court is binding to all the executive and judicial authorities within the State. Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. As such, whenever a law is laid down by the Supreme Court, it is binding on all the authorities whether executive or judicial in the entire country. Article 141 of the Constitution of India further provides that all the authorities, civil or judicial shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.”