The Madras High Court on Friday frowned upon its own Registry for attempting to discharge judicial functions by segregating connected cases and listing one set of those cases before a Division Bench and the other before a single judge.
Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu directed the Registrar General to ensure that the staff at the Registry are made aware of the elementary principles.
Training programme
The judges said a training programme could be conducted for them at the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, as early as possible, so such mistakes are not repeated.
The orders were passed when it was brought to the notice of the court that a batch of writ petitions were filed in the court challenging the validity of Section 462 of the Companies Act of 2013, which empowers the Centre to issue notifications stating that certain provisions of the law will not be applicable to a class or classes of companies.
The petitioners had also challenged a notification issued by the Centre in 2017, in exercise of its powers under Section 462, and also a few connected orders issued by the Centre under sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act.
The Registry segregated those cases and listed the challenge to Section 462 and the 2017 notification before a Division Bench and the other cases before a single judge.
“This was utterly ridiculous and completely devoid of any element of sense... A statutory provision or a rule may not be challenged in vacuum without there being a sequitur thereto. Courts do not take up provisions of statute and academically decide on the validity thereof without first ascertaining the relevance of such a decision in the context of the lis [dispute],” the first Division Bench wrote.
Authoring the order, the Chief Justice went on to state, “The Registry should restrain itself and not delve into judicial acts or require the ridiculous separation of the immediate challenge from the challenge to the validity of any statutory provision or rule.”
“ There have also been instances recently in this court where the matter has been disposed of, but the legal issue has been referred to a larger Bench, which is equally fallacious because the answer to the reference cannot be applied to any matter and no reference may be taken up for any academic purpose,” the Chief Justice added.
The first Bench took exception to the arbitrators and arbitral tribunals being needlessly impleaded as respondents whenever orders or awards passed by adjudicating bodies or arbitrators were put to challenge.
“Unless allegations are levelled against the adjudicating authority qua the conduct of the adjudication or against an arbitrator or the arbitral tribunal on grounds of personal misconduct, adjudicating authorities and arbitrators or arbitral tribunals are utterly unnecessary and imminently avoidable,” the Bench said.
The Bench ordered that the Registry should insist on striking off unnecessary parties.
