|
The power to overturn a fellow judges decision does not confer superiority over the judge who delivered it, the Keralam High Court has observed, emphasising that mutual respect and restraint must guide the relationship among judges even when they differ on questions of law.
According to a press release issued by the court, a Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji described peer restraint as fundamental to judicial discipline, holding that all judges of a High Court enjoy equal status and no Bench can claim institutional superiority over another. Invoking a recent Supreme Court judgment, the Bench observed that judicial strength comes from discipline, and not dominion. The court said peer restraint goes beyond the doctrine of binding precedents and encompasses judicial comity, mutual respect and harmony among Benches. These principles are essential to consistency and predictability in judicial decisions. No Bench higher in strength, or otherwise can neither advise or counsel, nor criticise as if supervisorily, other Benches or its members, on how to act and behave, or what to say and record, the Division Bench observed. An appellate Division Bench may disagree with a Single Judges conclusions and set aside or modify the judgment for valid reasons. However, the authority to correct a judicial decision does not confer superiority over the judge who delivered it, the court clarified. The judges explained that Single Judges and Division Benches exercise the jurisdiction of the same High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. An intra-court appeal provides an additional level of judicial scrutiny without making the Single Judge subordinate to the appellate Bench. The court also recalled that even the Chief Justice occupies the position of primus inter pares first among equals. The observations arose from an appeal involving an employee of the Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative Bank, challenging a Labour Court order extending the time allowed for disciplinary proceedings. In an earlier round of litigation, a Division Bench had remitted the matter for consideration of a certain issue. The Single Judge subsequently observed that a Division Bench does not normally remand a matter for fresh consideration by a Single Judge. Agreeing with that general principle, the Division Bench clarified that remand remains permissible when a material issue has not been examined. Where an issue has already been decided on merits, the appellate Bench must ordinarily decide the appeal itself. Referring an unanswered issue back also preserves the litigants opportunity to have it considered at both stages of the intra-court process. On the underlying dispute, the Division Bench upheld the Labour Courts power to extend the time for disciplinary proceedings but found that the extension had been granted without adequately evaluating the banks explanation for the delay or the employees objections. Allowing the appeal, the court set aside the extension order and directed the Labour Court to reconsider the application within two months. The October 15 judgment highlights a principle of significance to High Courts across India: appellate authority permits correction of judicial decisions, while respect and restraint preserve the fraternity of judges who collectively exercise that authority. (ANI)
|
