The Supreme Court Decision in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency

Yesterday, a Three-Justices' Bench of the Indian Supreme Court decided a batch of forty-six petitions referred to it, with the lead petition being Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency P. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [Crl. Appeal Nos. 1375-76 of 2013, (Asian Resurfacing)]. The decision carries two separate opinions - one by Justice Goel for himself and Justice Sinha, and a concurrence by Justice Nariman. The issues common to these petitions (which date back to 2013), were (i) what is the scope of Section 19(3)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [PC Act] (which places some prohibitions on granting of stays in corruption trials), and (ii) whether an order on charge in trials for PC Act offences can be challenged in Revision proceedings before a High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The Court answered these questions as follows: (i) Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act prohibits granting of stays for any reason, but does not take away the inherent powers of High Courts to grant stays under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and (ii) an order an charge in PC Act cases can be challenged via Revision proceedings before the High Court, as it is not a purely interlocutory order [orders on charge being the judicial stamp on the allegations by the prosecution, where the judge concludes there is enough basis to start taking evidence in the case]. 

Neither opinion answers both issues - Justice Goel mainly addresses the Revision petition problem [Paragraphs 25, 35], and Justice Nariman engages with the issue of stays [Paragraphs 8-11]. If one was to be a purist, these parts of the opinions are what form the ratio, or that part which should be followed in later cases. But such fine lines are hardly ever drawn with Supreme Court decisions, especially so with those by three Justices. And Asian Resurfacing might well prove more important for the large parts of obiter in Justice Goel's opinion, for he created new rules for how stay orders will be granted by courts - "stay orders" here being orders by which the proceedings can be halted by a superior court while it decides a petition brought before it. Now, stay orders shall lapse in all civil or criminal cases upon the expiry of six months unless "in an exceptional case" the presiding judge passes a "speaking order" explaining why continuing the stay was more important than proceeding with the trial [Paragraphs 35-36, Goel J.]. Having explained the effect of the decision, let me now turn to the reasoning adopted for deciding the two questions, before addressing the other remarkable parts in both opinions.

What Was The Problem?

The problem arose because of a decision by a two judges' bench of the Delhi High Court delivered by the current CJI in Anur Kumar Jain [2011) 178 DLT 501 (DB)] (previously discussed here and here). In that case, the Delhi High Court had held that (i) there can be no revision proceeding against orders on charge in PC Act cases, and (ii) while proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution were not barred, no order staying the trial could be passed because it was barred by Section 19(3)(c). The practical effect of this was that litigants challenged orders on charge through petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but without getting a stay of proceedings. It should be clear why stay orders were so sought after - if the trial kept proceeding, then any order from the High Court on the point of charge could potentially be useless. Since the High Court could not grant a stay, litigants turned to request the trial court to defer recording of evidence until the High Court decided the petition. Now, High Courts have clogged dockets, and without extremely reputed counsel one is unlikely to get a petition disposed fast enough, and even then most petitions would eventually prove futile. This legal position made it unfairly prohibitive for litigants (both with means and without) to challenge orders on charge despite having good bases to do so.

The legal basis of the Delhi High Court's opinion was tenuous on both issues. It had decided that the order on charge in PC Act cases was an "interlocutory" order, and so could not be challenged through a Revision petition because of the specific bar against this under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. But it had come to this conclusion by attempting to distinguish earlier Supreme Court precedent in Madhu Limaye [(1977) 4 SCC 551], by suggesting it had been modified by another Supreme Court decision in V.C. Shukla [1980 (Supp) SCC 92] (discussed previously here). With respect to the ban on stay orders, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court decision in Satya Narayan Sharma [(2001) 8 SCC 607] which had held that Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act completely prohibits granting any stay orders by any court, including by the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court had arrived at this conclusion in Satya Narayan Sharma without discussing the nature of inherent powers under Section 482, and how several decisions including Madhu Limaye had interpreted the scope of these powers being untrammelled as they were intended to do justice and prevent abuse of process.

How did the Supreme Court Decide the Issues?

The Court held that the Delhi High Court in Anur Kumar Jain was wrong on both counts, while it did correctly hold that exclusion of Revision petitions did not control the scope of a High Court's inherent powers or constitutional jurisdiction. The issue on the nature of orders on charge was straightforward enough - the Court approved the legal position in Madhu Limaye, which had held that "interlocutory" for purposes of Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. was not to be seen as referring to everything except the final judgment. In doing so, it relegated the decision in V.C. Shukla to historical insignificance by holding that that the decision was purely limited to the special statute it was concerned with, and did not affect the position of law. So, the position of law governing PC Act cases remained what the Court had held in Madhu Limaye, and by that standard, orders on charge were not "interlocutory" and remained open to challenge through Revision petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. [Paragraphs 24-25, Goel J.].

The legal aspects of the issue regarding granting stay orders in PC Act cases was addressed by Justice Nariman. He reasoned, first, that while Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act did go beyond merely sanction issues [contrary to what the Petitioners argued (Paragraphs 7-8, Nariman J.)], it did not cast an absolute ban on granting stay orders. Rather, he read this together with Section 19(3)(b), and said that the power to grant stay orders to prevent failures of justice did exist [Paragraph 8, Nariman, J.]. The second part of his reasoning extended this power to High Courts. For this, he reasoned that inherent powers of a High Court were not granted by the Criminal Procedure Code but arose because of the High Court being a Court of Record with powers to punish for its contempt, and the origins of inherent power were thus properly traced to the Constitution itself. Section 19 of the PC Act, by overriding application of anything in the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore could not affect exercise of the constitutional authority by High Courts - under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as well as Articles 226 / 227 of the Constitution [Paragraphs 9-11, Nariman, J.]. High Courts had full powers to grant stay orders even in PC Act cases, and this conclusion meant that the Court's earlier decision in Satya Narayan Sharma was no longer good law.

Everything Else - Rules on Stay Orders and the Ghost of Suneja

Both opinions are curious things - Justice Goel says nothing about the legal issue on stays, and yet his opinion will shake up how courts across the country regulate stay orders in all sorts of cases. And then there is the ghost of Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI [(2017) 14 SCC 809 (Suneja)] - another decision by three Justices where the Supreme Court considered the same issues. Let's take up both in order.

Limits on Stay Orders 

In recent years, several government bodies have cast a beady eye on stay orders and the delays they cause in the legal system (see here and here). The Court itself has been quite vocal about stay orders being granted too loosely and matters dragging on endlessly. In Asian Resurfacing itself, the Court notes how the FIR was registered in 2001 - seventeen years ago - and the case is still at the stage of charge (although no explicit mention of stay orders is made). Thus, a move which tightens this process can arguably be considered as a positive move for the Indian legal system. To this extent, I agree, but I maintain a cautious optimism over what this case could achieve. We must remember that this is happening in appeals where two specific legal issues regarding the PC Act were referred to a larger bench of the Supreme Court, and none of them was about delays through stay orders in the entire legal system. Thus, it remains fully possible for a subsequent bench of the Court to go ahead and remind us that these observations could not be binding. The chances of this are not remote, considering how a large part of litigation in India involves lawyers strategically using stay orders. On a related note, it should also concern us that the Court was ready to come at these sweeping conclusions without citing any recent data on the problem - it cited portions of a 2012 decision in Imtiaz Ahmed [(2012) 2 SCC 688] which had nothing to do with civil litigation either. Do we know how many cases will be affected by this ruling? Was there a better way than to issue a diktat sitting from New Delhi, that will now rumble on slowly through the vast legal system across India and cause havoc in several cases? Perhaps there was, but now, unless something changes one can expect a fair bit of turmoil as all courts across the country determine the impact of what the Supreme Court said in Asian Resurfacing.

Girish Kumar Suneja

Which brings me to Suneja - a decision that had been the subject of some criticism on this blog (see here, and here) [Full disclosure: I was involved in the litigation in a connected petition for petitioners who had challenged the impugned order, and thus lost in the Supreme Court]. Suneja also addressed both of these issues (unnecessarily, as I argued previously), and had come at diametrically opposite conclusions: the Court had held that (i) Revision proceedings against PC Act orders on charge are barred, (ii) that this prohibition also barred challenging such orders under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as this indirectly lifted the ban on Revision proceedings, and finally (iii) that Section 19(3)(c) of the PC Act completely barred stay orders from being granted. Now, since Suneja was also decided by three Justices, the Supreme Court could not overrule it in Asian Resurfacing. So we find both opinions trying to arrive at a compromise - holding that the conclusions in Suneja were incorrect without actually saying that the decision was wrong. And it makes for a sad spectacle. Justice Goel's opinion admits that "seemingly conflicting observations" were made in Suneja, but it did not displace Madhu Limaye, which remained good law through all these years [Paragraph 25, Goel J.], and strangely enough, goes ahead and favourably cites Suneja to begin his lament against delays [Paragraph 26, Goel, J.]. 

Justice Nariman tries to salvage Suneja by indirectly admitting that some parts of that decision were incorrect and conflicted with other parts which contain "an exposition of the law correctly setting out what has been held earlier in Madhu Limaye". But judgments must be read as a whole, and thus he asks that these parts be read "harmoniously" to arrive at the correct conclusion, i.e. the one that he has arrived at [Paragraph 17, Nariman, J.]. I am yet to fully wrap my head around how this happens: the parts of Suneja that are admittedly incorrect are in fact the holding of the case on two PC Act issues that we have flagged here [Paragraphs 25, 29 and 32 of Suneja]. The lone paragraph in Suneja that Justice Nariman says is "correctly setting out" the law [Paragraph 38 of Suneja], comes when the Court is deciding whether or not litigants could challenge orders on charge through Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution, after the Court has already decided that litigants cannot challenge these orders under the Cr.P.C. And even if one agrees that Paragraph 38 of Suneja should control, I struggle to understand how it controls on the issue of granting stays, which it says nothing about. 

Conclusions

Asian Resurfacing has already made headlines for its limits on stay orders. Those observations are of undoubted significance, but for reasons that I already expressed above, I remain wary of hailing it as a game-changer just yet. The decision is also striking for providing an insight into a peculiar problem that the Supreme Court has often faced - genuine disagreement between two sets of benches on what the law should be. The institutional dynamics of the Court have not always been conducive to neat solutions in these scenarios, and something similar has happened between Asian Resurfacing and the 2017 decision in Suneja. The Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing has tried to remove the ground on which Suneja stood without finding it incorrect, but the reconciliation is far from satisfactory. Despite how both opinions refused to call it so, the conclusions in Asian Resurfacing are certainly in conflict with what was held by the three Justices in Suneja, which makes the conclusions arrived at in Asian Resurfacing of questionable legal force. This means that, technically, one can argue that the decision in Asian Resurfacing is little more than a bright facade with a hollow core and should not be followed by courts. Only time will tell how the decision is received.   

Special Offences Part III - Curbing Appellate Jurisdiction

I was recently made aware of a peculiar feature of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An order framing charge and refusing to discharge an accused, I was informed, could not be challenged by way of a revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. The reason behind this lay in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in V.C. Shukla v. State (through CBI) [1980 (Supp) SCC 92]. Today, this has been supplemented by High Court decisions [see e.g. Anur Kumar Jain v. CBI, (2011) 178 DLT 501 (DB)] holding that no revision against such orders on charge can be filed by an accused - you either move the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or the Supreme Court under Article 136. 

V.C. Shukla v. Delhi Administration 

Since this decision is the basis of the law today, it makes sense to start here. Before that, a little word on the actors in this case. Both Vidya Charan Shukla and Sanjay Gandhi had been convicted by a Sessions Court in Delhi for alleged offences committed by them/at their behest in the Emergency. They moved the Delhi High Court by filing appeals against their conviction. In the meanwhile, the Special Courts Act, 1979 was passed by operation of which their appeals were transferred to the Supreme Court. They subsequently also challenged the legality of the Special Courts Act. Cynics would argue that the chances of the Supreme Court striking down legislation introduced to do deal with Emergency cases by those seemingly at the helm of those atrocities was minimal, to say the least. All I would say is that the political nature of the decision cannot be ignored.  

The issue I am concerned with appears in another appeal filed only by V.C. Shukla, challenging the order framing charges against him. He preferred an appeal under Section 11 of the Special Courts Act. Sub-clause (1) of which read "notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, an appeal shall lie as of right from any judgment, sentence or order, not being interlocutory order, of a Special Court to the Supreme Court on both facts and law." Sub-clause (2) read "except as aforesaid, no appeal or revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order of a Special Court." The State naturally challenged this appeal on a preliminary basis, arguing that an order framing charge was interlocutory. Three separate opinions were delivered, and the Court by a majority of 3-1 agreed with the State. By and large, the reasons for this were that (a) the Object of the Special Courts Act was to speed up the trial, and (b) the fact that Section 397(2) Cr.P.C. already excluded revisions against interlocutory orders meant that the scope of 'interlocutory order' for the 1979 Act had to be different and in tune with its larger object of speedy trials. An order on charge, though 'a matter of moment', did not finally decide the trial and was therefore interlocutory. 

Importing V.C. Shukla to Other Laws

Today, a vast majority of special offences place restrictions on the scope of appellate and revisional jurisdiction. These restrictions can be found, for instance, in (i) Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, (ii) Section 47, Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, (iii) Section 12, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act 1999, (iv) Section 19 of the erstwhile Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act 1988, (v) Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act 2008. Cases on the interpretation of these provisions either dismiss challenges by simply invoking the authority of the decision in V.C. Shukla, or liken the circumstances of the special offence to the logic of that case to justify the restrictions on appellate/revisional jurisdiction. 

Questions and a Different Explanation

V.C. Shukla and subsequent cases did restrict one way to challenge orders on charge, but made clear that they did not completely close down the possibility of challenging such orders. Today, petitions continue to be filed before High Courts under Section 482, Cr.P.C. which makes one question the efficacy of the argument restricting revisional jurisdiction to curb challenges to such orders. The majority didn't adequately consider that the changes to revisional jurisdiction in the Cr.P.C. (barring revisions against interlocutory orders) were also made to speedily dispose cases. Despite this, the Supreme Court repeatedly had found fit to not curb its scope to simply exclude everything barring final orders. The Court insufficiently explained why this further restriction was justified for special offences but not the Cr.P.C. itself [all that is said is that the Code deals with so many offences that it should be broader]. Further, none of these decisions consider whether any differences exist between appellate and revisional jurisdiction. While appeals are statutory rights, what about revisions? What if V.C. Shukla had filed a revision instead of an appeal? 

Finally, what if the Court got it all wrong in V.C. Shukla to start with? Consider this for a moment. The Special Courts Act, along with the other statutes mentioned above, create a completely separate procedure for trial of offences. Special Courts/Judges/Tribunals are set up, and their procedure is then delineated. In the Special Courts Act 1979, the 'Special Court' consisted of sitting High Court judges, which meant any supervisory jurisdiction would be to the Supreme Court. Since this procedure was present nowhere under existing law, the Act created it through Section 11. However, as every little detail of trial could not be defined the Act imported provisions of the Cr.P.C. in case of any gaps.The Supreme Court reasoned that the Legislature would not simply have been restating the provisions of the Cr.P.C. on revision while inserting them in the Special Courts Act, requiring one meaning to be different. But incorporating the Cr.P.C. might have been exactly what the Legislature was doing [this is nicely explained in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1984) 2 SCC 500]. It could not simply apply the provisions of the Cr.P.C. on revisions and appeals as the trial here was conducted at the level of the High Court. Therefore, it did so with necessary tweaks. After all, what would be more speedy than ensuring the judges continue to follow well-established procedures?

Comments would be lovely. 

Special Offences: The White Knight and Heroes we Deserve

[This is the fifth post in a stop-start series discussing issues arising from the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For earlier posts, see here, here, here and here]

[A slightly different version of this post first appeared on the Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy Blog]

Last week a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court decided Girish Kumar Suneja v CBI (Crl. M.C. 3847/2016 decided on 27.10.2016), dismissing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution as non-maintainable. The petition challenged an order framing charges in one of the many Coal-Block Allocation Scam related matters being tried before a Special Judge in New Delhi (this particular case also had the industrialist Naveen Jindal as a co-accused). It forms part of our series on the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and can be seen as tying in with the third post in the series on appellate jurisdiction. This post begins with some much needed background before going to the decision in Girish Kumar Suneja, with some mild comments to close.

The Genesis – Shahid Balwa and the 2-G Trial

I’ve written earlier about a tendency to idolise the Supreme Court as a White Knight cleaning up the corrupt governance of India. This was in full view in 2010-2011 as the telecom spectrum allocation scandal hit the country, seriously questioning the integrity of the Executive and Legislature. Approval ratings of the Supreme Court automatically skyrocketed while it quashed license-allocations, and, most importantly for this post, monitored a CBI investigation and then vetted the entire set-up (from the particular judge to the special prosecutor) for trial of the offences allegedly arising out of this ‘2-G Scam’. Before ridding itself of the matter, it also directed that any challenge to orders passed by the Special Judge trying the 2-G Scam cases had to be made before the Supreme Court and access to the High Court had been completely barred for anyone aggrieved. This was labelled an exercise of the Court’s extraordinary powers to do ‘complete justice’ under Article 142 of the Constitution.

Procedural rights of accused persons had been restricted before by both Federal and State legislatures [the legality of which came up before the Supreme Court way back in State of West Bengal v Anwar Ali Sarkar (AIR 1952 SC 75)]. But for the first time we saw the Supreme Court itself go ahead and take up the reins. And since the Supreme Court was seemingly handling everything at that point this evoked little criticism. Naturally, though, it was challenged by the accused in the first 2-G Scam case and this was decided in Shahid Balwa v Union of India & Ors. [(2014) 2 SCC 687]. The Supreme Court took the opportunity to rubber-stamp its actions with approval while giving little legal justification. Instead, it turned to coffee-table conversation and served up ‘Larger Public Interest’ as the answer. Larger Public Interest demanded a speedy trial. This meant denying the accused their constitutional remedies to challenge judicial orders, because these challenges were mostly fraudulent abuses by these ‘better-heeled litigants’ of the ‘openings’ offered by the criminal justice system and delayed the trial. In fact, the Court thought the accused owed it to this Larger Public Interest to forego their rights to appeal and challenge decisions to ensure the smooth progress of the trial.

The Coal Scam and Girish Kumar Suneja

The Coal-Block Allocation Scam is the latest opportunity for the Supreme Court to reprise its White Knight act and go through the repertoire of corruption-cleaning remedies. Barring access to the High Court for criminal defendants figured as a part of this and became the focal point in Girish Kumar Suneja. The Petitioner argued a challenge to the order framing charges was maintainable before the High Court and could not be barred by the Supreme Court’s orders. This seemed obvious it was argued, for of course the Supreme Court could never have intended to take away substantive rights, or limit the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227. The focus of those orders was to prohibit challenges that sought a stay against trial court proceedings, and there was no problem here as no stay was sought.

The Delhi High Court disagreed. It did not merely recite Shahid Balwa but gave a lengthy order with three main planks of reasoning. The first was to distinguish the right of appeal and the right of revision/exercise of inherent powers by the High Court. There was no problem in denying the latter, the High Court held, because it was discretionary as opposed to a statutory right of appeal. The second plank was to conclude that no problem arose by denying writ remedies under Articles 226 & 227 as the Supreme Court remained accessible to those aggrieved. And finally, the High Court observed that orders passed under Article 142, such as the one barring access to the High Court in the present case, were binding on all courts and thus had to be complied with here.  

Comment – An Odious State of Affairs

Girish Kumar Suneja leaves much wanting. For starters, if the High Court thought it was bound by Article 142 then this renders the other planks of reasoning entirely superfluous. Those planks, in any event, are made of termite-stricken wood. In distinguishing the right of appeal with revision / inherent powers the High Court missed the point entirely. The issue here was not about the exercise of power but about whether access to court through this means could itself be barred completely for particular litigants. On this point the Petitioner cited Anur Kumar Jain [(2011) 178 DLT 501 (DB)] (which I discussed earlier). A Division Bench of the High Court held that while Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 barred a revision against orders on charge, this could not prohibit invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. and / or Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution, as such a denial would be unconstitutional. Girish Kumar Suneja tries to side-step the issue of unconstitutionality in denying writ remedies [held contrary to the basic structure in L. Chandra Kumar (1997) 3 SCC 261] by wrongly equating the Supreme Court and High Court as fungible forums which is contrary to the text of the Constitution itself. I would go so far as to argue that reliance on Article 142 was also misplaced here. Because orders passed on 25.07.2014 by the Supreme Court in the Coal Block Allocation Scam did not specifically invoke Article 142 unlike the orders passed at the time of the 2-G Scam.

The biggest problem remains the decision in Shahid Balwa. In Anwar Ali Sarkar (supra) the Court struck down a West Bengal Special Courts Act as it did not provide any principles for the executive to decide which cases could be tried by special procedures that took away some rights of the accused. Larger Public Interest is as bad, if not worse, as that untrammelled executive discretion the Court warned against. The rhetoric about ‘better-heeled litigants’ reminds me of the criticisms levelled by Professor Hart in his exchange with Patrick (later Lord Devlin, where he questioned his conclusions on the relationship between law and morals for lacking any empirical basis. But since Article 142 of the Constitution does not prescribe how the Court must go about dispensing ‘complete justice’, we are expected to keep calm and carry on knowing that our constitutional rights may be withdrawn based on what the Court feels is the Larger Public Interest. One can argue that Shahid Balwa has limited applicability by relying upon the observations of the Three Judge Bench decision in State of Punjab v Rafiq Masih [(2014) 8 SCC 883] which noted that orders under Article 142 are not binding precedent [a paragraph that was cited in Girish Kumar Suneja]. This would prevent blind reliance on Shahid Balwa to pre-empt any debate on the validity of such orders excluding access to justice in subsequent cases. One can only hope that the decision in Shahid Balwa has been cut down to size before the next time the White Knight makes a reprisal.