Review: Supreme Court Says Courts Must Exercise Caution Before Passing Interim Orders Directing Colleges to Keep Seats Vacant
In this edition of the Court judgments review, we look at Karnataka HC’s decision that there should be active instigation to constitute an offence of abetment of suicide, Kerala HC’s decision where it ruled that withholding pensionary benefits while a vigilance case was pending is justified, SC’s order that Courts must exercise caution before passing interim orders directing colleges to keep seats vacant, among others.
Karnataka HC: There should be Active Instigation to constitute Offence of Abetment of Suicide
In Prema (Appellant No. 1 & Wife) vs. State of Karnataka, the High Court (HC) of Karnataka held that the illicit relationship of a wife with another does not constitute for the offence of instigating the husband to suicide.
The facts of the case were that Appellant Nos. 1 & 2 were having an illicit relationship while the husband of Appellant No. 1 was alive. Both husband and wife had quarrels between them because of the illicit relationship of a wife. On 10 July 2010, accused No. 2, with whom the wife had an illicit relationship, asked her husband to die, so that both he and wife could live peacefully. On 15 July 2010, the husband hung himself to death. Accordingly, the Appellants nos. 1 & 2 were charged with abetment of suicide of the husband and were convicted by the trial court. The trial court’s decision was appealed against in HC by the Appellants
The HC held that merely because Appellant No. 2 had asked the husband to die does not constitute the offence of abetting suicide. Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) stipulates that there should be “instigation” to constitute the same offence. As held in numerous judgments by the Supreme Court (SC), instigation refers to an act when a person actively suggests or stimulates another to act by means of language, direct or indirect, whether it takes the form of express solicitation, or of hints, insinuation or encouragement. In the present case, however, there is no such active instigation. Accordingly, the Appellants were acquitted.
Kerala HC: Withholding Pensionary Benefits while Vigilance Case was pending is justified
In S. Gopalakrishnan Potti (Appellant) vs. State of Kerala and Ors, the Kerala HC held that withholding pensionary benefits while the vigilance case was pending was justified.
The facts of the case were that the Appellant was suspended, while he was working as Joint Development Commissioner, in the year 2000. He was reinstated in 2001 but was denied promotion as Additional Development Commissioner (ADC). However, due to the interim order of HC in August 2008, he was promoted to the same position. Thereafter, he retired in November 2008 and was issued no liability to government certificate in December 2008. Though the Appellant was provided the pension amount post his retirement, he was denied pension benefits due to the pending vigilance case against him. In 2010, the Appellant was acquitted of the same case. Therefore, the Appellant had asked the government for retrospective promotion with back wages, and penal interest amount for the delay in paying pensionary benefits to him. Though the government granted retrospective promotion and pensionary benefits, the back wages and the penal interest claims were denied. Therefore, the Appellant approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal noted that the Appellant’s promotion was not denied due to any wrong reasons, but because of the pending case. Additionally, the Appellant was given a notional promotion as ADC with a specific condition that he would not be eligible for back wages, but for pensionary benefits. Therefore, the back wages were rightly denied. As for the penal interest claim, the court noted that pensionary benefits could not be disbursed as the same is possible only after the conclusion of the vigilance case. The government took the steps of granting pensionary benefits, immediately after the Appellant was acquitted in the vigilance case. Therefore, there was no delay, and hence this claim was also denied.
Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the government was justified in not paying back wages and penal interest amounts. This order was appealed against in HC by the Appellant. The Kerala HC upheld the order stating that the Tribunal has taken all factors into consideration in its order.
SC: Courts must exercise caution before passing Interim Orders directing Colleges to keep Seats Vacant
In Ramakrishna Medical College and Ors (Appellants) vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors, the Appellants approached Supreme Court (SC) through separate Appeals, seeking the relief of creating compensatory Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) seats in the ensuing academic year.
The facts of the case were that in 2017, the Madhya Pradesh government introduced the Mukhyamantri Medhavi Vidyarthi Yojana (Scheme), by which fee payments in certain courses would be made by the government to eligible students. It also contained a condition that the income of the parent of the eligible candidate should be below Rs. 6 lakhs. This was raised to Rs. 8 lakhs vide amendment to the Scheme in August 2023. Respondent No. 5 (in the matter before SC) approached HC of MP with the claim that because the income level has been raised, more students became eligible for being covered under the scheme which prevented him from getting admission during MOP-UP round counselling. He sought the relief including directions to conduct fresh MOP-UP counselling, and postponing the application of the scheme’s amendment from the next academic year onwards, etc. The HC passed interim direction to keep one medical seat vacant during MOP-UP round counselling. In a separate case, Respondent No. 4 (in the matter before SC) approached HC claiming for allocation of MBBS seat with other grounds. The HC passed another interim direction to keep one medical seat vacant. In both cases, the Director of Medical Education directed the Appellant colleges in the present matter to keep one medical seat vacant in their institutions. Before both matters were adjudicated, the admissions for 2023-24 were over, resulting in a loss of monetary and other resources for medical colleges. Both the colleges approached HC seeking a compensatory seat in the subsequent academic year. The HC did not give them any relief, hence they approached SC.
The SC observed the following aspects:
- Firstly, the interim order is a cryptic order where neither the prima facie case nor the balance of convenience and irreparable loss aspects have been discussed.
- Secondly, a medical seat has life only in the year it falls due and that too only till the fixed cut-off date.
- Thirdly, keeping vacant seats results in huge financial losses to the college apart from being a national waste of resources.
- Fourthly, interim orders to keep seats vacant can be given only if there is a cast iron case for the petitioner and the petitioner is bound to succeed in cases where the error of the respondent authorities is so gross as to negate any other conclusion.
These aspects have not been taken into consideration by HC while passing interim orders. Accordingly, the SC, though did not agree to grant of additional seat in the next academic year, directed the colleges to approach the Fee Fixation Committee/Fee Fixation Authority. The said committee shall restitute the monetary loss suffered by colleges by reckoning the deficit in fees that has resulted due to the single vacant seat and fix the fees by adding such amount to the total fees proposed to be fixed.
Kerala KC: Right of Media to Freedom of Speech and Expression under Article 19(1)(a), is controlled by Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution, its Ideals, Values, and Concepts
In Dejo Kappan & Ors vs. Deccan Herald and Ors, the Kerala HC dealt with the following questions relating to media’s freedom of expression and speech:
- Whether the print and electronic media have unlimited and unrestricted freedom to publish details of criminal cases pending their investigation and trial?
- Whether any restriction in that regard can and ought to be put in place by the court?
- Whether the court can frame guidelines regarding reporting of criminal cases at the stage of investigation and trial?
The court held in a parliamentary democracy like India, the media is expected to discharge its duties responsibly, and the necessity of media to provide true and accurate information, along with the necessary context to fully comprehend the same, cannot be understated. This aspect of freedom of expression and speech has been examined and well-settled principles have already been laid in numerous case laws both in the national and international jurisprudence.
However, in the contemporary information age, where live streaming of court proceedings offers a discerning citizen the option of following the court proceedings from a place of his choosing, the constitutional freedom of the press/media in its scope and ambit to airing its personal opinion should be exercised with responsibly, more so because airing such opinions can also have the effect of affecting the reputation of a party, violating the Right to Life Article 21.
Accordingly, the 5-member bench gave full concurring judgment, albeit with different reasons, and concluded as follows:
- The right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) cannot be restricted save by a law made by a competent legislative body, and even thereunder only on the grounds expressly mentioned in Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
- The right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), like any other constitutional right, has a content that is determined by the interplay of that right with the rights granted to others under the Constitution, as also by the obligations imposed under the Constitution on the rights holder. In other words, the ideals, values and concepts under the Constitution, the rights conferred on others thereunder, and the duties imposed on the right holder itself under the Constitution, serve to delimit the particular right and determine its content, scope and extent.
- In the case of a conflict arising between the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a), and the right of an individual to his/her dignity or reputation that is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution, the former has to be seen as controlled not only by the latter, but also by the ideals, values, concepts and fundamental duties recognized under the Constitution which are equally binding on the media. The right under Article 19(1)(a) thus gets correspondingly delimited and, in appropriate cases, must yield to the right of the individual under Article 21 of the Constitution.
- In the context of reporting facts relating to criminal investigations or cases pending adjudication before the various adjudicatory forums, the right of the media to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) would be further delimited by their obligation to defer to the principle of separation of powers that is recognised under our Constitution. The said principle, coupled with the concept of the rule of law, mandates that the final and authoritative determination of guilt or innocence can be pronounced only by a judicial authority. Therefore, the expression by the media of any definitive opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of a party in a criminal investigation or a case pending adjudication, before an authoritative pronouncement is made by the adjudicatory forum concerned, would not get the protection under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
- The declaration of the law, as above, is deemed necessary so as to guide the media in its exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression in situations where they deem it necessary to report facts relating to criminal investigations and cases pending adjudication before various adjudicatory forums in our country. Deference to the said declaration of law would go a long way in preventing unnecessary instances of breach of fundamental rights of individuals in society and hopefully would also usher in a new era of responsible journalism.
- In those instances where an aggrieved individual can establish that his/her right to dignity/reputation traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution has been or is likely to be infringed by the actions of the media, he/she can approach a constitutional court which can forge a suitable measure to either prevent or contain the damage occasioned by the breach of that right.