‘SC exists to uphold personal liberty, not justify govt excess’
Justice Bhuyan emphasised the need for the court to speak in one voice to ensure law is uniformly followed across all courts.
Supreme Court’s justice Ujjal Bhuyan on Sunday said that the top court exists to uphold personal liberty of citizens and not to justify executive excesses, as he emphasised the need for the court to speak in one voice to ensure law is uniformly followed across all courts and countries do not feel hesitant to extradite white collar criminals.
Justice Bhuyan, who has authored the decision granting bail to AAP convenor Arvind Kejriwal in the Delhi liquor scam and gave the lone dissent opposing ex-post facto environment clearance, said that white collar crimes are serious in nature but investigating agencies should enhance their credibility by being selective in targeting criminals when they change political sides.
Also Read | Was citizenship on your mind when SIR started? Supreme Court asks poll body
The views were made as part of a panel discussion at an international conference in Goa organised by the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) on the topic ‘Changing Landscape of White Collar Crime Investigation’.
Justice Bhuyan said, “The very existence of the Supreme Court is for upholding personal liberty and human rights. The Supreme Court is not established to justify executive action denying liberty and violation of human rights…The perception may vary but when we apply principles of laws, there can’t be multiplicity of views in the Supreme Court.”
{{/usCountry}}Justice Bhuyan said, “The very existence of the Supreme Court is for upholding personal liberty and human rights. The Supreme Court is not established to justify executive action denying liberty and violation of human rights…The perception may vary but when we apply principles of laws, there can’t be multiplicity of views in the Supreme Court.”
{{/usCountry}}When several benches of the top court speak in different voices while expounding the law, it risks not only conveying a wrong message to courts below but undermines court’s credibility among foreign nations.
{{/usCountry}}When several benches of the top court speak in different voices while expounding the law, it risks not only conveying a wrong message to courts below but undermines court’s credibility among foreign nations.
{{/usCountry}}“There cant be divergence of views on the fundamentals on which our legal system exists. Once this is done, all peripheral things will fall in place and the credibility of our system will increase. Jurisdictions outside our country will not hesitate to extradite people who are wanted to be prosecuted in this country,” he said. He cited the example of notorious gangster Abu Salem who was extradited from Portugal on a condition that he will not be sentenced to death in the crime he is charged with.
{{/usCountry}}“There cant be divergence of views on the fundamentals on which our legal system exists. Once this is done, all peripheral things will fall in place and the credibility of our system will increase. Jurisdictions outside our country will not hesitate to extradite people who are wanted to be prosecuted in this country,” he said. He cited the example of notorious gangster Abu Salem who was extradited from Portugal on a condition that he will not be sentenced to death in the crime he is charged with.
{{/usCountry}}The comments by the judge came a day after he expressed similar views at a lecture in ILS, Pune on Saturday. He had said, “It will be a sad day for the judiciary and by extension our democracy, if a verdict in a case becomes a foregone conclusion the moment it is listed before a particular bench or a particular judge.” He even spoke openly against the executive influencing collegium decisions on transfer of judges and said that the integrity of the collegium should be maintained at all costs.
Picking the threads from his speech on Saturday at the panel discussion, Justice Bhuyan said that different benches giving diverse views on a question of law or in other words ‘polyvocality’ has been seen by some judges as a sign of “diversity” on the bench while others view it as a “serious issue” undermining the credibility of the Supreme Court.
“If each bench is guided by its own views of right and wrong, it ends up giving wrong signals not only to the trial courts, but also to the high courts,” justice Bhuyan said, terming this as a “serious” issue.
The SCOARA conference organised by advocates-on-record of the top court led by its President Vipin Nair, Vice President Amit Sharma, Secretary Nikhil Jain and joint secretary Kaustubh Shukla was attended by judges from other countries, top court and high court judges across the country, eminent jurists, senior advocates, law firms and legal academicians.
Also Read | ‘Justice delayed is justice destroyed’: CJI Kant calls for vigilant high courts
Addressing another issue of credibility of federal agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Enforcement Directorate (ED), the judge said, “It should not appear that investigation in cases is selective or targeted. There are examples where somebody who is accused of a white collar crime is not presented to the court because at the last moment, he has changed sides. Can the agencies be permitted to be selective?”
This is serious, he added, by saying, “If this happens, the very purpose of having these special legislations are lost. Someday, this issue has to be dealt with by courts.” He stressed the need for investigating agencies to ensure that their own investigation commands credibility as the discussion discussed the low conviction rate in prevention of money laundering act (PMLA) offences.
“Where success rate in conviction is low, credibility of investigation agency is obviously low,” Justice Bhuyan said, and even called for a social audit on whether the Prevention of Corruption Act has achieved its objective.
In the backdrop of the recent split verdict on section 17A of PC Act which provides for prior sanction of the government before investigating corruption charges against a public servant, the judge said, “As a student of law I am of the view that seeking prior approval of authority before you want to investigate may not be the appropriate method. It will virtually amount to preventing or vetoing an impending investigation against a corrupt officer. We end up going against the small fish and letting the big players out of the net.”
While our laws and legal infrastructure are in place, on the need of the hour, he said, “All we need to do is to keep aside our political and ideological views and stick to our Constitution.”
