If we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief then what are we doing here? Supreme Court asks

The Supreme Court of India on Friday said that it is duty bound to act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief. (Iqram vs State of Uttar Pradesh and ors)

In a case of electricity theft, where the convict had already served 3 years in prison and had another 15 years to go for stealing electricity, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud said that if the Supreme Court did not act, it would be a breach of Article 136 of the Indian Constitution.

"If we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief then what are we doing here? What is Supreme Court doing and is it not a breach under Article 136. Supreme Court exists to hear to the cry of such petitioners. We burn the midnight oil for such cases," he said.

He then asked Senior Advocate and former Madras High Court judge S Nagamuthu to be present in the court for the case.

"This is why I asked you to stay back. Just imagine. As a former Madras High Court judge you know that no case is too big or no case is too small for the Supreme Court. When he went to the High Court, look at what the High court does. Trial court did not exercise power, we are not talking about our power. Surely High Court could have exercised powers under Section 482 (of CrPC)," he said.

The appellant was tried and charged under nine different First Information Reports (FIRs) related to alleged instances of electricity theft.

The trial court awarded two years imprisonment to him in each of the nine cases and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently.

However, since the nine orders were passed on the same day, no specific directions for the sentences to run concurrently were issued.

Jail authorities treated the sentences as consecutive as a result of which the appellant had to serve 18 years in prison. He thus moved a plea under Article 226 before Allahabad High Court which was rejected.

The Supreme Court determined that the facts of the case indicated a justification for it to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of fundamental right to life and liberty inherent in every citizen.

"Facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for SC to excercise its jurisdiction as a protector of fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the court was not to do so, there would be serious miscarriage of justice for a citizen whose liberty has been abrogated. It is in seemingly small routine matters that issues of moment both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms emerge," it said.

The Court said that the High Court should have intervened in exercise of its jurisdiction by setting right the miscarriage of justice.

It, therefore, allowed the appeal and directed that the sentences run concurrently and not consecutively.

Notably, on Wednesday, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju had said in parliament that a Constitutional court like the Supreme Court of India should not hear bail applications and frivolous Public Interest Litigation (PILs).

"If Supreme Court of India starts hearing bail applications, if Supreme Court of India starts hearing all frivolous PILs, definitely it will cause lots of extra burden on the Honourable Court itself, because Supreme Court by and large is treated as a Constitutional court," he had said.

Advocates Mohd Anas chaudhary, Shehla Chaudhary, and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary represented the petitioner.

Advocates Sarvesh Singh Baghel and Divyanshu Sahay appeared for the respondents.

[Read order]