The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned courts against passing adverse orders with "surprise" directions that go beyond the issues raised or reliefs sought by litigants in their pleadings [P Radhakrishnan & Anr. v. Cochin Devaswom Board & Ors].
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice KV Viswanathan observed that such and approach could create a chilling effect on access to justice, as litigants may be left wondering whether they could be rendered worse off by approaching courts.
"Litigants go to court for vindicating their rights when they perceive that there is an infringement. The court may, after hearing both parties, grant or deny them relief .... As pointed out in V.K. Majotra (supra) and Mohammad Naim (supra), if, without putting parties on notice ... the court travels beyond the scope of the petition, takes parties by surprise and makes any strong observations and directions, it will create a chilling effect on other prospective litigants too. They will be left to wonder whether by going to court in matters where they perceive injustice has resulted, they will be rendered worse off than what they were, before initiating the proceedings. This could seriously impact access to justice and consequently the very rule of law. Hence, in such matters, courts must exercise great caution and circumspection," the Court said.
The top court made the observation while setting aside two directions issued by the Kerala High Court in a case between the Cochin Devaswom Board and representatives of the Chinmaya Mission Educational and Cultural Trust.
The dispute concerned the enhancement of the licence fee for the use of certain land in Thrissur. 13.5 cents of land had been allotted to the Trust in 1974 to construct a hall for religious, cultural and marriage purposes, with conditions requiring it to be made available free of cost for Devaswom programmes and pilgrims.
The annual fee for the land use, initially fixed at ₹101 and later raised to ₹227.25 in 1977, remained unchanged for decades.
In 2014, the Devaswom Board unilaterally increased the licence fee to ₹1.5 lakh per annum and demanded arrears exceeding ₹20 lakh, prompting the Trust to move the Kerala High Court for relief.
The High Court upheld the fee hike. Moreover, it went on to direct the Board to refix the licence fee and conduct a vigilance inquiry into the land allotment to the Trust.
The Trust challenged this turn of events before the Supreme Court.
It argued that such directions went beyond the scope of the issues raised and reliefs sought in its writ petition, taking it by surprise. The Trust pointed out that it was left worse off for having sought judicial redress from the High Court.
The Supreme Court granted the Trust relief. It held that the Kerala High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that went beyond the scope of the writ petition.
The top court observed that while the High Court was justified in upholding the enhancement of the licence fee, it erred in directing the Cochin Devaswom Board to refix the licence fee and initiate a vigilance inquiry into the land allotment to the Trust.
"We are of the opinion that the High Court was not justified in passing the directions ... The directions were far beyond the scope of the writ petition. The appellants could not have been rendered worse off in their own writ petition. What is more, the directions have been made without putting the appellants on notice," the Court said.
The Supreme Court added that if, in an exceptional case, a court feels compelled to travel beyond the scope of a writ petition and make additional observations, it must first afford affected parties an opportunity to explain and defend themselves.
The Bench observed that the Kerala High Court had failed to do so, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the Court expunged portions of the High Court’s order that had directed the refixation of the licence fee and a vigilance probe.
"However, notwithstanding the expunction of the above paragraphs, if the respondent-Board has legitimate rights to enhance the licence fee, they may do so independently and in accordance with law," the top court added.
Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal and Advocates NK Unnikrishnan, Anu K Joy, Alim Anvar, Santhosh K, Devika AI and Smita Amratlal Vora appeared for the appellant (Trust and its representative).
Senior Advocate PV Dinesh and Advocates PS Sudheer, Anna Oommen, Rishi Maheshwari, Anne Mathew, Bharat Sood, Jai Govind MJ, Jashan Vir Singh, Harshad V Hameed, Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Mahabir Singh and Anshul Saharan appeared for the .
[Read Judgement]