NEW DELHI: Observing that courts should eschew unwarranted judicial activism and should not transgress permissible limits in their enthusiasm , the Supreme Court on Friday took serious objections to Kerala High Court for “crossing all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint” by passing various orders relating to Syro-Malabar Church land sale controversy in Kerala in which Cardinal Mar George Alencherry is facing trial.
While refusing to grant relief to the Cardinal who had sought quashing of the case against him, a bench of
The top court, however, dismissed his plea challenging the High Court order of dismissing his all six petitions against orders of Judicial Magistrate taking cognizance of complaints filed against him and issuing summons to him.
“The High Court in its overzealous approach had travelled not only beyond the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C and of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but had crossed all the boundaries of judicial activism and judicial restraint by passing such orders under the guise of doing real and substantial justice,” the bench said.
The top court also noted that the concerned judge also assumed his plenary-advisory role by calling upon and advising the State Government to legislate a comprehensive law addressing the issues pertaining to the legal status of unincorporated organisation acting under the guise of religion or charity.
“In our opinion, the jurisprudential enthusiasm and wisdom for doing the substantial justice has to be applied by the courts within the permissible limits. The belief of self-righteousness or smugness of the High Court in exercise of its powers of judicial review should not overawe the other authorities discharging their statutory functions. We may not have to remind the High Courts that judicial restraint is a virtue, and the predilections of individual judges, howsoever well intentioned, cannot be permitted to be operated in utter disregard of the well-recognized judicial principles governing uniform application of law. Unwarranted judicial activism may cause uncertainty or confusion not only in the mind of the authorities but also in the mind of the litigants. ,” Justice Trivedi, who wrote the judgement for the bench, said.
The bench, while upholding HC’s order to quash the petition of Alencherry, quashed HC’s subsequent orders
Alencherry had contended that six criminal proceedings were initiated against him at Kakkanad while a prior complaint with respect to the same cause of action was pending before Judicial Magistrate of Ernakulam. Alleging that parallel proceedings cannot be initiated in the same case, he alleged that the complainant had concealed the fact about pendency of his complaint on the same subject matter covering all allegations while filing fresh complaints.
The High Court had dismissed his petitions and had held that the cardinal cannot seek refuge under Canon Law, which is a personal law applicable to the church, to escape liability under general law of the land.
Challenging HC order, he alleged that the HC did not take note of the fact that a complaint was filed earlier on in 2018 by the same complainant on the same subject matter,covering all allegations made against him in the present set of complaints.
“The High Court failed to consider that the basic material/ allegations on which the Kakkanad court took cognizance had already been investigated and considered by various courts while dealing with various complaints which have either ended with closure report or an observation that it was subject matter of civil proceedings,” the petition hwd said.