The directions had to be confined to this particular case.
They could not possibly have had any larger or wider applicability for the simple reason that any such Rules of general applicability would have to be approved by the Full Court. A delegation of the authority of the Full Court would have to be in a manner known to law. A Single Judge hearing a particular matter within his rostered assignment has no authority or jurisdiction to issue any rules binding the entire Court. It is only the Full Court or the Hon’ble the Chief Justice which or who can do that. Very possibly, such Rules might even have been required to be notified in the official gazette. None of this was in contemplation at any time on 24th September 2021. {Para 5}
7. Ms Jaising agrees that this sufficiently addresses her clients’
concerns in the Interim Application. She therefore does not press
the Application. It is disposed of in these terms.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 2215 OF 2022
IN
SUIT NO. 142 OF 2021
Forum Against Oppression of Women …Applicant
In the matter between
P ...Plaintiff Vs A & Ors …Defendants
CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J
DATED: 17th March 2022
1. The Interim Application is filed by a group, The Forum
Against Oppression of Women. This is an application under Order 1
Rule 8-A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908
(“CPC”).
2. It seeks impleadment in the Suit, which is between private
parties. It seeks this because of my order of 24th September 2021.
This was an order that issued certain directions regarding the
further progress in the matter, covering aspects of confidentiality
etc. The Interim Application proceeds on the basis that the
directions on that day in the Suit were general directions governing
all matters under the POSH Act and Rules.
3. That is an incorrect impression.
4. It is true that it remained to be specifically noted in that order
of 24th September 2021 that the order was indeed not only
restricted to this particular Suit, but was by consent of both sides
and was based on signed written submissions presented by the
Advocate for the Plaintiff, Ms Abha Singh, and Dr Saraf for
Defendants Nos. 1 and 2.
5. The directions had to be confined to this particular case.
They could not possibly have had any larger or wider applicability
for the simple reason that any such Rules of general applicability
would have to be approved by the Full Court. A delegation of the
authority of the Full Court would have to be in a manner known to
law. A Single Judge hearing a particular matter within his rostered
assignment has no authority or jurisdiction to issue any rules binding
the entire Court. It is only the Full Court or the Hon’ble the Chief
Justice which or who can do that. Very possibly, such Rules might
even have been required to be notified in the official gazette. None
of this was in contemplation at any time on 24th September 2021.
6. I addressed some of these inadvertent lapses in the
subsequent order of 11th October 2021 where, in paragraphs 3 and 4
I said:
“3. Second, the Court Associate points out that the
suggestions by Ms Abha Singh for the Plaintiff and Dr
Saraf for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were tendered on
24th September 2021 remained to be noted in the
order of 24th September 2021 and to be formally taken
on record. Ms Singh’s signed submissions are retained
on record and marked “X1”. I am marking them with
the date of 24th September 2021 since that is the date
when they were taken on record. Similarly, Dr Saraf’s
submission for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are marked
“X2” for identification with date of 24th September
2021.
4. It is also clarified that while the consent order of
24th September 2021 presently governs further
proceedings in this matter according to the agreed
protocol, parties are always at liberty to apply, should
the need arise or if there is a change in
circumstances.”
7. Ms Jaising agrees that this sufficiently addresses her clients’
concerns in the Interim Application. She therefore does not press
the Application. It is disposed of in these terms. I have taken the
liberty of orally pointing out the submissions made by Ms Abha
Singh under her signature including the submissions for masking
names, in camera hearings and protecting privacy.
8. It is clarified that this order is required to be uploaded,
although with the names of the parties anonymised.
9. The papers had to be unsealed for this order. They will be
sealed again.
(G. S. PATEL, J)
No comments:
Post a Comment