Lower judiciary bound by directions issued by High Court, anything that prevents compliance should be recorded: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court on Friday emphasized that the subordinate judiciary is bound by directions issued in High Court orders. (Abdul Rehman v. State of Kerala and Anr).If subordinate judges faced any difficulty in complying with the High Court's directions, it is expected to record the same, the High Court has said. .A Bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan remarked:."When directions are issued by this Court, the lower judiciary is bound to obey the same. If there is any reason for not complying the orders, it should be specifically mentioned by the learned Magistrate.".The Court was hearing a bail application moved by one Abdul Rehman, a person accused of rape and criminal breach of trust. The Kerala High Court had previously dismissed his anticipatory bail application, but had allowed Rehman the liberty of moving a regular bail plea in the event of his arrest by the Investigating Officer. A condition had been imposed in the dismissal order instructing the jurisdictional court to dispose any bail application moved by Rehman on the day it was moved..The Magistrate Court, which was the jurisdictional court, dismissed his application for regular bail. Aggrieved, Rehman approached the High Court..His counsel contended that the Magistrate Court had breached the High Court's earlier condition while hearing Rehman's regular bail application by adjourning the matter twice without recording reasons. This was a clear case of a Magistrate violating the orders of the High Court, the advocate submitted..The advocate additionally asserted that even if the allegations were accepted, a case of rape was not demonstrated by the material at hand..Justice Kunhikrishnan observed that the charge against the Magistrate, if true, was serious and would have to be examined by the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) and other authorities on the administrative side..The Bench noted that the High Court's order was produced before the Magistrate when the petitioner applied for regular bail. In such a situation, the Magistrate Court ought to have mentioned any inconvenience in pronouncing orders on the bail application on the same day itself. .If there was any other inconvenience to the learned Magistrate for passing the order, the same ought to have been mentioned in the order. I leave it there.Justice Kunhikrishnan.Since Rehman had already been in custody from November 25, and given the prevailing COVID-19 pandemic, the Court deemed it appropriate to allow his release on bail. In his order, Justice Kunhikrishnan states that the Court had not dealt with the merits of the charges against the petitioner..Directing that a copy of the order to be placed before the Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) for the examination of the charge against the Magistrate, the bail application was allowed..Advocate Rasheed C Noorand argued the petitioner's bail application while Public Prosecutor Renjith TR appeared for the State..Read the order: