Supreme Court's Stance in Arnab Goswami Case illustrates the Need for High Courts to do Full Justice

Republic Television Editor-In-Chief Arnab Goswami was granted interim bail by a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices F.Y. Chandrachud and Indira Banerjee. They held that the Bombay High Court was incorrect in rejecting the bail application as it had sufficient powers to do full justice.

"Supreme Court is unhappy that High Courts, which are constitutional courts, are not doing enough in matters where personal liberty is denied…," he said, "If this court were not to interfere today, we are travelling on a path of destruction of personal liberty undeniably…Is this what our state governments will do to those who have to be nailed…?"

The remarks amply illustrate the need for high courts to step in for the sake of doing justice.

As far as judicial powers are concerned, no limitation has been imposed under the Constitution on the Courts to grant bail. Instead, the conferment of judicial power under Articles 141, 142, 32 and 226 has been plenary and very wide.

Goswami's case came up before the apex court two days after the Bombay High Court rejected his bail application, under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, on the ground that an alternative remedy was available. That if it granted bail, then it may be flooded by other similar cases!!

The High Court had instead directed a sessions court to decide on the bail application within four days of his filing the petition. Earlier this month, Goswami, one of India's celebrated journalists, was arrested from his apartment in a case of abetment to suicide of architect Anvay Naik in which the Raigad police previously found no illegality.

In Maharashtra Chess Association Vs Union of India and Ors, it was held that the role of the High Court under the Constitution is crucial to ensuring the Rule of Law throughout India's territorial jurisdiction. To achieve these transcendental goals, the powers of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction is necessarily broad.

(After all) they are conferred in aid of justice. It was emphasised that courts have "repeatedly held that no limitation can be placed on the powers of the High Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction."

In Kartar Singh v. the State of Punjab, the Court observed that the power given to the High Court under Article 226 is an extraordinary power not only to correct the manifest error but also to exercise it for the sake of justice. Under the Constitution, a High Court is the highest Court for purposes of exercising civil, appellate, criminal or even constitutional jurisdiction so far as the State is concerned.

The jurisdiction possessed by the High Court before coming into force of the Constitution was preserved by Article 225, and under Articles 226 and 227 an extraordinary jurisdiction was conferred on it to ensure that the subordinate authorities act not only in accordance with the law, but they also function within the framework of the law. That jurisdiction of the High Court has not been taken away and in fact, could not be taken away by legislation.

In England, even in the absence of a codified Constitution, any attempt by Parliament to provide that any order was final and no writ of certiorari would lie in the High Court, such a provision has always been struck down. This is because the High Court under the Constitution is a forum for enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen. It cannot be denied the power to entertain a petition, by a citizen, claiming that the State machinery was abusing its power and was acting in violation of the constitutional guarantee.

Instead, it has a constitutional duty and responsibility to ensure that the State machinery was acting reasonably and not on extraneous considerations.

In Goswami's case before the Supreme Court, Justice Chandrachud minced no words in emphasising the need for a High Court to exercise its powers.

"Please exercise your jurisdiction to uphold personal liberty! Case after case, High Courts are denying personal liberty! If we as a constitutional court do not lay down the law and protect liberty then who will," he said. "If the state governments target individuals in this manner, let's send out a message that the Supreme Court is there."

Further, he observed that "assuming that the FIR (First Information Report) is the gospel truth and that's a matter of investigation, but is not paying up money abetment to suicide? It will be a travesty of justice if bail is not granted while FIR is pending."

In the case of Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (Para 202) on the powers of the courts, it was observed that the only provision made by the Constitution makers in this behalf is to be found in Clause (2) of Article 32, which confers power on the Supreme Court to issue directions or orders or writs including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, whichever may be appropriate, for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights.

The powers conferred under writ jurisdiction are to be seen in the broadest terms and not confined to writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, certiorari and quo warranto, which are hedged in by strict conditions. It includes the power to issue any directions, orders or writs which may be appropriate for enforcement of the fundamental right in question.

Even if the conditions for issue of any of these high prerogative writs are not fulfilled, the Courts would not be constrained to fold its hands in despair and plead its inability to help the citizen who has come before it for judicial redress but would have the power to issue any direction, order or writ.

The Supreme Court and the High Courts are both empowered to do complete justice under the Constitution of India. But the latter has to dispense justice within a circumscribed domain and the Supreme Court of India, being the final Court of law, knows no bounds and limitations while dispensing justice to the parties.

However, the Supreme Court has maintained its supremacy by reiterating that the inherent power under Article 142 of the Indian Constitution is not available to the High Courts or other subordinate courts. But that is not a limitation which should come in the way of a High Court to do full justice.

Ultimately, for Commissions and Courts, the Parliament in its wisdom has endowed the powers. It is for the individual who is in a position to impart justice and utilise his powers, to appreciate and imbibe the true meaning and import of such powers.

May Justice prevail forever.