WHEN DENYING CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AMOUNT TO JUDICIAL TERRORISM

A friend openly sought on facebook law of higher courts ruling Audio/Video Tape-Recorded Conversation admissible in evidence,which was asked by the Court of Judicial Magistrate from him when he submitted an application to produce Audio/Video Tape- Recorded Conversation.


Considering gravity of the matter,i provided that friend following judgements passed by the Supreme Court ruling Audio/Video Tape-Recorded conversation admissible in evidence-


1.R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra,AIR 1973 SC 157

2. N. Sri Rama Reddy
vs V.V. Giri, AIR 1971 SC 1162

3.Ziyauddin Burhanuddin Bukhari vs Brijmohan Ramdas Mehta, AIR 1975 SC 1788

4. Yusufalli Esmail Nagree vs State of Maharashtra , AIR 1968 SC 147

5. S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72


6.Ram Singh vs Col. Ram Singh , AIR 1986 SC 3

7. Magraj Patodia vs R. K. Birla (1970) 2 SCC 889


Two judgements of two different high courts may also prove helpful in this regard which were also provided to him-


8.Ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rupchand vs Mahabir Prasad, AIR 1956 Punjab 173

9.Ruling of the Bombay High Court in C.R. Mehta vs State of
Maharashtra, 1993 Cr. LJ 2863


 Relevant facts of these cases were also reproduced to him.


Now come to the Constitutional Provisions.


Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that ''The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.Further Article 142(1) provides that the decrees and orders of the Supreme Court shall be enforceable throughout the Territory of India.Articles 129 and 142(2) provide the Supreme Court power to punish for contempt of itself.


These Constitutional Provisions seem to have been confined within the book of Constitution in most of cases.The Conduct of Magistrate in the matter of that friend also appears to be one such case where provisions have been kept only in the book.


It is very unfortunate that the Supreme Court has not initiated any effective step to bind its law on all subordinate courts.


Laws have been declared by the Supreme Court ruling tape-recorded conversation admissible evidence,but the Magistrate is still seeking such laws from the petitioner. In such circumstances, what is the meaning of binding of law to all subordinate courts?
Binding should simply mean that all subordinate courts are bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court without asking same from any party to a proceedings.Binding should mean that all Subordinate Courts are already acquainted with the law declared by the Supreme Court,as such there is no need to inform such law to the Court by any party to a proceedings.


In the interest of justice,the Supreme Court ought to issue following directives-

1.Every law declared by the Supreme Court shall be sent to the National Judicial Acamedy for providing training of such law to Judicial Officers.

2.Every law declared by the Supreme Court shall be sent to all High Courts and all High Courts shall send such law to all its Subordinate Courts.

3.No court shall ask about any such law from any party to a proceedings.Doing so will amount to contempt of the Supreme Court and any such aggrieved party shall be entitled to initiate contempt proceedings against presiding Magistrate/Judge of such court before the Supreme Court under Articles 129 and 142(2) of the Constitution. However,it shall be at the liberty of any party to a proceedings to produce such law of its own volition,but shall not be asked by the Court of its own volition.


If above directives are passed by the Supreme Court,then people can get rid of from hiring an expensive lawyer,who is required to produce such law and if not hired,case is lost.Time taken in a proceedings can be minimized.Magistrates/Judges can be made more knowledgeable and their knowledge may prove helpful to pass order according to the law,not contrary to law.

It is well settled that electronic evidences are admissible only after the judicial scrutiny which includes opinion of expert etc.But it is not justified to ask about rulings of higher courts pertaining to admissibility from any party to a proceedings in order to keep electronic documents on record and further to scrutinize the same.Without asking such from any party,the court should do same at its discretion in accordance with the rulings of higher courts. In the present case,the court asked the rulings of higher courts even before producing electronic documents before the court.There should be no bar in producing electronic documents.Only after production of electronic documents,the question of judicial scrutiny comes and court must do this scrutiny in accordance with the rulings of higher courts without asking same from any party to a proceedings. Same has been discussed in my status with a suggestion for the Supreme Court to issue three directives.