Introduction:

In a recent case, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, addressed a petitioner’s writ petition under Article 32, expressing dissatisfaction with the delay in the hearing of a criminal appeal in the High Court. The petitioner sought a direction to expedite the process, challenging the perceived violation of Article 21. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the absence of a provision conferring superintendence powers on the Supreme Court over the High Courts, drawing on the constitutional framework.

Arguments:

The petitioner argued that the delay in the High Court’s consideration of the criminal appeal violated their fundamental right under Article 21. However, the Supreme Court, citing Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar (2004) 5 SCC 1, highlighted the constitutional separation of jurisdiction between the Supreme Court and High Courts, stressing the need for mutual respect between the two institutions. The Court expressed reluctance to issue a direction, deeming it an inappropriate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction and a disrespect to another constitutional court.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the theoretical maintainability of the Article 32 petition, asserted that it could, at best, request the High Court. Emphasizing the limited scope of interference in the High Court’s listing decisions, the Court referenced Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Vs. State of Maharashtra, affirming that a judicial decision within competent jurisdiction does not infringe a Fundamental Right. The Court concluded that the delay in prioritizing the petitioner’s appeal, filed in 2016, was part of the judicial process and could not be challenged through Article 32.