Page 95 - 5_COMPENDIUM VOL-5

SUPREME COURT Important Judgements

said proceedings have resulted in denial of the fundamental rights

31. We also fail to appreciate as to why there should be any
guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution or if the said proceedings

apprehension of diluting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as
suffer from a jurisdictional error or any error of law apparent on the
envisaged under the Act or the constitutional scheme, based on
face of the record.”
observations made by us in the present judgment.

30. How can courts countenance a scenario where even in the
Conclusion:
aforesaid position, a party is left remediless? It would neither be legal

32. We have, thus, no hesitation in concluding that the judgment in
nor appropriate for this Court to say something to the contrary or restrict

24
Major General Shri Kant Sharma & Anr. case does not lay down the
the aforesaid observation enunciated in the Constitution Bench judgment
correct law and is in conflict with judgments of the Constitution Benches
23
in S.N. Mukherjee case. We would loath to carve out any exceptions,
25
rendered prior and later to it, including in L. Chandra Kumar case,
including the ones enumerated by the learned Additional Solicitor
26
27
S.N. Mukherjee case, and Rojer Mathew case making it abundantly
General extracted aforesaid as irrespective of the nature of the matter, if
clear that there is no per se restriction on the exercise of power under
there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution

Article 226 of the Constitution by the High Court. However, in respect
or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the

of matters of self-discipline, the principles already stand enunciated.
record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction. There appears to be

a misconception that the High Court would re-appreciate the evidence,
33. We having now dealt with the general propositions, turn to the

thereby making it into a second appeal, etc. We believe that the High
individual cases as they may require different nature of orders. In fact, a

Courts are quite conscious of the parameters within which the
list of the matters and the nature of orders solicited have also been set

jurisdiction is to be exercised, and those principles, in turn, are also

24
(supra)
already enunciated by this Court. 25 (supra)
26
(supra)
23 27
(supra) (supra)
21 22

83