Introduction:

In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal seeking to mandate trial courts to affix their signature or initials on every page of the case diary produced by investigative agencies. This plea was put forth by Mohammed Shiyab, an accused in the high-profile 2022 murder of BJP Yuva Morcha member Praveen Nettaru. The bench, consisting of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, upheld an earlier single-judge decision, emphasizing that courts cannot legislate requirements that are absent from statutory language. The court highlighted the limited role of the judiciary in matters of interpretation, stressing that judicial authority ends where legislative authority begins.

Background of the Case:

The case arose when Shiyab, arrested for the alleged murder of Praveen Nettaru, submitted a plea requesting that each page of the case diary be signed by the trial court judge to prevent potential tampering. The case diary, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), is maintained by investigating officers and accompanies orders of remand but does not require page-by-page signature authentication. Shiyab’s plea was initially dismissed by a single-judge bench, prompting his appeal to the division bench, which subsequently confirmed the earlier ruling.

The appellant claimed that signatures or initials would help prevent fabrication or tampering of the record and pointed to similar practices in other states to substantiate his request. However, Karnataka’s legal framework, specifically the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968, does not require such a practice, and neither does the CrPC. This omission formed a key basis for the court’s decision.

Arguments by the Appellant (Mohammed Shiyab):

• Need for Judicial Authentication:

The appellant’s counsel argued that requiring judicial officers to sign each page of case diaries would safeguard against potential tampering. Shiyab’s counsel, Advocate Mohammed Tahir, argued that judicial oversight on case diaries is critical to ensuring authenticity and transparency.

• Reference to Other States’ Rules:

The appellant drew attention to procedural practices in other states where judicial officers initial each page of the case diary, advocating for a similar approach in Karnataka. He argued that such a practice is a necessary protective measure to avoid falsification of records.

• Reliance on Section 172 of CrPC:

The appellant relied on Section 172, which provides for the maintenance of case diaries by the investigating officer and their production before the magistrate during remand hearings. Although Section 172 does not specify judicial signatures on every page, the appellant argued that mandating this would serve as a check on any potential manipulation of the entries.

Arguments by the Respondent (National Investigation Agency – NIA):

• Lack of Statutory Basis:

The NIA’s counsel, Senior Public Prosecutor P Prasanna Kumar, countered that the appellant was seeking a legislative measure in the form of a judicial order, which is beyond the judiciary’s purview. The respondent argued that Karnataka’s procedural law did not require signatures on each page, and enforcing such a rule would overstep judicial boundaries.

• Impracticality of the Requirement:

The NIA argued that mandating judicial signatures on each page would be impractical, especially given the sheer volume of information recorded during investigations. They contended that the absence of such a requirement in the CrPC or the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice reflects this practicality.

• Judicial Restraint and Precedent:

The respondent also emphasized that judicial restraint is crucial, particularly when legislative bodies have not provided for such a practice. Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, the NIA counsel highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory language without judicial modification, warning that such changes could complicate criminal procedures across the state.

Judgment of the Division Bench:

The division bench delivered a detailed judgment affirming the single judge’s decision, addressing the boundaries of judicial interpretation, and dismissing the appeal based on the following key points:

• Limited Scope of Judicial Interpretation:

Justice N V Anjaria observed that neither the CrPC nor Karnataka’s procedural rules contain any mandate for page-by-page judicial authentication of case diaries. He reiterated the settled principle that courts must interpret statutory language as it stands, without adding or modifying provisions. Doing so would be tantamount to judicial legislation, which is beyond the judicial domain.

• Separation of Powers:

The judgment emphasized the judiciary’s duty to respect the separation of powers and cautioned against crossing into the legislative arena. The court underscored that the judiciary’s function is restricted to interpreting the law, not enacting or amending it. By adhering strictly to statutory language, the court upheld the integrity of legislative intent and maintained the separation of powers, affirming that any amendments to procedural requirements should be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary.

• Statutory Limitations of Section 172 of CrPC:

Analyzing Section 172, the court noted that the provision allows courts to call for case diaries but does not permit their use as evidence. The court highlighted that Section 172 serves a limited purpose of aiding the trial process, not as a source of substantive evidence or verification. Furthermore, Section 172 does not obligate judicial officers to authenticate entries, nor does it imply such a requirement.

• Inapplicability of Writ of Mandamus:

The court found no basis for issuing a writ of mandamus to compel judicial signatures, as the duty was neither supported by statutory language nor established as necessary. A writ of mandamus typically applies only when a statutory duty is unfulfilled, which was not the case here. The court’s refusal of the writ underscored the importance of judicial restraint when no legal provision mandates the requested action.

• Previous Supreme Court Precedents:

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the division bench reiterated that judicial bodies cannot impose additional requirements absent explicit statutory backing. Adding such requirements, even under the guise of interpretation, would disrupt established procedures and exceed judicial authority. The court drew from the single-judge order, which had elaborated on these precedents, affirming that the judiciary’s role is to act as an interpreter, not a creator, of law.

• Procedural Uniformity and Legislative Adaptation:

Justice Anjaria also observed that procedural practices vary across states, and procedural differences reflect unique legislative adaptations. Adopting a uniform approach without legislative guidance could interfere with state-specific rules and complicate criminal procedures.

Conclusion:

The Karnataka High Court’s decision in this case reinforces a foundational principle of judicial interpretation: courts must not legislate. By declining to mandate page-by-page judicial authentication of case diaries, the court underscored its commitment to statutory interpretation without judicial overreach. This judgment highlights the importance of respecting legislative boundaries, maintaining procedural uniformity,and adhering to statutory language in criminal cases.