On the morning of February 26, a Supreme Court Bench headed by a visibly miffed Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant promised to bring about reforms in the Supreme Court Registry after finding that a petition that was dismissed by a three-judge bench found itself listed before another bench.
The CJI announced that he would undertake a deeper administrative probe questioning Registry officials who “think they are permanent”.
The Bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, was hearing a plea assailing the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 on account of repugnancy owing to Section 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Cut to the south of India, where another constitutional court, the Kerala High Court, was deliberating on the release of 'Kerala Story 2- Goes Beyond', a sequel to the controversial The Kerala Story, which portrayed the alleged recruitment of women from Kerala into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The petitions before the Kerala High Court arose amid controversy surrounding the sequel, much like the earlier film, which drew widespread criticism for its depiction of religious radicalisation of women and its alleged impact on the image of Kerala.
The petitioners moved the Court contending that the movie misrepresents Kerala and its release could incite communal disharmony.
At 2.30 PM on Thursday, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed an interim order staying the release of the movie.
The single-judge opined that prima facie there was an absence of application of mind by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) while giving the movie a green signal. The Court, therefore, directed the CBFC to consider the revision petitions filed by the petitioners within a period of two weeks.
Pertinently, the single-judge ordered that the movie shall not be released for 15 days.
Justice Thomas said that while he is usually hesitant when it comes to interfering with the release of films, the Court has to step in when the alleged content of the film could have the genuine potential of inciting communal disharmony.
The producers filed an appeal and got it listed on an urgent basis before a Division Bench of Justices SA Dharmadhikari and PV Balakrishnan at 7.30 PM the same day.
It is quite unusual for the Court to sit beyond working hours to hear cases unless it involves life or personal liberty of an individual.
Hence, the urgent listing of a case to have a movie released raised many an eyebrow.
However, what was more startling was the revelation that one of the judges on the Division Bench made in open court when the appeal hearing began.
Justice Dharmadhikari said that he permitted filing of the appeal on Thursday morning, unaware that the single-judge was yet to pass any order in the matter.
"We had granted the prayer to file appeal in the morning itself, but nobody told us that judgment was yet to be delivered. The judgment was delivered in the afternoon, so there was no question of hearing this case in the afternoon," he remarked.
From his statement, what could be gathered was that the lawyers for the producers made an urgent mentioning before the Division Bench for listing of appeal.
As per the judge's statement, the permission for filing the appeal was granted in the morning. This, despite the single-judge not having passed any orders.
The single-judge would go on to pass his judgment only at 2.30 in the afternoon. Did this mean the producers pre-empted that the single-judge was going to pass an order against them and mentioned the matter in the morning?
It requires no special knowledge to garner that such a step is neither allowed nor condoned by rules or norms in any court in India. An appeal can be filed before a higher forum only against a judgment which has been pronounced by a lower forum.
How then can an appeal be mentioned before even a judgment, which it seeks to challenge, has been delivered?
The Division Bench was required to quiz the producers' lawyers further on this, though that never happened.
It behoves both the Bar and the Bench to ask this pressing question and to find out the truth.
For a judiciary deeply concerned with the integrity and procedural functioning of its Registry, it would do itself a world of good to also uphold the integrity of its own procedure and norms.