By IANS
New Delhi : The Supreme Court Tuesday reserved its verdict on what judicial norms judges ought to adhere to while writing and delivering their judgements.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, reserved the verdict after briefly examining the issue and hearing arguments on “the difference of opinion” between the two judges of the bench of Justice H.K. Sema and Justice Markandey Katju, in one of their judgements, delivered Jan 29.
Justice Sema referred the judgement to the three-judge bench of Chief Justice Balakrishnan, as he noted, following “difference of opinion on certain legal actions” between him and Justice Katju.
After hearing the arguments, the chief justice’s bench, which also included Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, reserved its verdict, saying that the issue appears to be whether there could be a “judgement within a judgement”.
The judgement had turned out to be rather unconventional as the bench had delivered two separate but concurring judgements on the issue of criminal liability of an executive of Bangalore-based multinational company, Hewlett Packard Global Soft Ltd, in the rape and murder of a woman employee while she was returning home from office at night.
While both Justices Sema and Katju held the firm’s erstwhile managing director Som Mittal liable for his failure in providing safety to the employee, Justice Katju, in his separate judgement, went beyond the issues involved in the ruling.
Justice Katju dwelt on the hardships of Uttar Pradesh residents owing to the absence of law for anticipatory bail in the state and instructed the Uttar Pradesh government to restore the law for anticipatory bail.
It was this direction to the Uttar Pradesh government that made the ruling unconventional and was referred to as “a judgement within a judgement” by the chief justice’s bench.
Earlier, in another case Justice Katju had warned the judiciary against judicial activism, saying it must not trample upon the domains of the legislature and executive, or else politicians would step in.
This judgement too stands referred to a larger bench as it had triggered unprecedented confusion in the superior judiciary over its power to entertain public interest lawsuits.