The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear a judicial
officer's plea challenging his suspension by the Patna High Court, presumably
for delivering a series of quick judgements, including in a POCSO case where he
concluded the trial in a single day.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit and S R Bhat issued notices,
including to the state of Bihar, on the plea filed by Shashi Kant Rai, an
additional district and sessions judge (ADJ) in Araria.
Rai has claimed in his plea that he "reasonably
believes" there is an "institutional bias" against him as he
concluded the trial in a POCSO (The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
Act) case involving the rape of a six-year-old girl in a single day.
He has cited another judgement where he awarded capital
punishment to an accused in four working days of trial, and claimed these
verdicts were widely reported in the media and appreciated by the government
and public alike.
"Issue notice returnable in two weeks," the bench
ordered.
"The response to the petition shall indicate the steps
taken pursuant to the order of suspension which is presently under challenge
and place all the concerned documents on record," the court said.
During the hearing, the bench observed there are several judgements
of the apex court where it has said sentence should not be pronounced on the
same day (after concluding the trial).
Justice Lalit recalled a judgement was rendered in a case
where a person was given death sentence in a span of nine days and the top
court set aside that order and sent the matter back to the sessions court for
fresh trial.
"Because, according to us, this will be a travesty of
justice that you are not even giving adequate notice, adequate opportunity to
the person who is finally going to get death sentence," the bench said,
adding the judgement was delivered in 2019.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for Rai, said the
petitioner was also denied promotion.
He said the judgement in the POCSO case involving the rape of
a six-year-old girl, in which the trial was concluded in a single day and
accused awarded life term, was not stayed in appeal.
The judge said a three-judge bench of the apex court is
already dealing with the broader question of what mitigating circumstances are
being taken into account before awarding death sentences.
"So, we have been actually trying to devise modalities
and say very well that at least you go check the prison record, check the
probation officer. Now, this kind of assessment requires some reasoned approach
to the matter," the bench said.
"There are umpteen number of judgements of the Supreme
Court that sentencing issue should not be resorted to on the same day," it
said.
The apex court observed that matters involving death sentence
are serious as they relate to a person's life and death.
It said there were many instances where the conviction order
and the sentencing order were passed the same day, and in at least half a dozen
verdicts, death sentence was commuted purely on that ground (of haste).
Singh referred to a judgement delivered by the apex court and
said the court had held that a subordinate judicial official should not be
subjected to disciplinary proceedings for an error of judgement.
"Correct, understandable. Error in judgement is a
different issue. Here, error in judgement is not the point," the bench
said.
The plea alleged that the "non-speaking" order of
February 8, 2022 passed by the high court keeping the petitioner under
suspension with immediate effect is "manifestly arbitrary and violates the
principles of natural justice". A non-speaking order is an order where
reasons for arriving at a conclusion or finding have not been mentioned.
"There is no reliance placed on any material while arriving at the said
decision. The order merely states that disciplinary proceedings are pending
against the petitioner and therefore, in exercise of the powers under Sub-rule
(1) of Rule 6 of the Bihar Judicial Service (Classification, Control &
Appeal) Rules, 2020 places the petitioner under suspension," it said.
The plea claimed the petitioner had only sought consideration
for restoration of seniority on the basis of the new evaluation system
introduced by the high court, which issued a show cause notice and later
suspended him without giving any reasons merely for questioning the process of
evaluation of judgements.
"The present writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India is being filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the
non-speaking suspension order dated February 8, 2022 issued by the High Court
of Patna and the purported disciplinary proceedings as mentioned therein, being
malicious, illegal, arbitrary, violative of fundamental rights of the
petitioner as enshrined under Article 14 and 21 as also against the principles
of natural justice," it said.
The petitioner had joined the Bihar Judicial Services in
2007.
…………………………..