Supreme Court of India Rajendra Singh Yadav vs Chandra Sen And Ors. on 26 October, 1978 Equivalent citations: AIR1979SC882, (1979)4SCC111, 1978(10)UJ862(SC), AIR 1979 SUPREME COURT 882, 1979 ALL. L. J. 628, 1978 UJ (SC) 862, 1979 (1) SCWR 138, (1979) 2 SCJ 234, 1979 (4) SCC 111 JUDGMENT V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. 1. Exordially speaking, the point for decision is short but its legal import and human portent are deep, sounding in constitutional values and meriting incisive examination. Where the question wears a simple look but its answer strikes at life and liberty we must proceed on the inarticulate major premise of human law as the solemn delivery system of human justice. In formal terms, the problem to be resolved is the vires of Order XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) of the Supreme Court Rules (the Rules, for short), but in juristic terms it turns on the inflexible stages as against its facultative facets of an appellate hearing when it is a first appeal against a death sentence or life imprisonment. More particularly, is an appeal to the Supreme Court falling within the scope of Article 134(1) or the enlarged jurisdiction permitted by Article 134(2) liable to shorthand hearing and peril of summary dismissal ? Brevi manu, the appellant urges that Article 134 of the Constitution compels this Court to hear and dispose of criminal appeals of the grave categories covered by it, not ex parte as Order XXI Rule 15(1)(c) of the Rules permits but in extenso, and only after notice to the State and with the record of the case before it. Therefore, the Rule is bad. 2. Any legal issue of profound impact, if regarded by Judges literally and not creatively, may be given short shrift, especially if counsel is more assertive than explorative, produces more heat than light and the text to be interpreted lends itself to one sense on the surface and another in the deeper layers. But when the consequences of the construction can be calamitous and the subjectmatter involves the right to life and long loss of liberty, a final court, like ours, must reflect on the meaning of meanings, the human values which illumine our legal system and the ends of justice the means of law must serve. The heart and the head interact and interpret, 3. A thumbnail sketch of the sequence of facts may be necessary to get a hang of the constitutional core of the case. Several persons, including the appellants, were accused of murder and other violent offences but were acquitted by the Sessions Judge. The State carried an appeal to the High Court against the acquittal of all the 18 accused persons. In an elaborate judgment the High Court found the case of the prosecution proved although it confirmed the acquittal of quite a few. The convicted accused, 12 in number, were awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. and lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences. Thereupon the convicted appellants preferred an appeal to this Court under Section 2(a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970, (for short the Enlargement Act). This appeal was listed for preliminary hearing ex pane under Rule 15(1)(c) of the Rules (as amended in 1978). When the case was opened at the preliminary hearing counsel for the appellants contended that, as an inalienable incident of a statutory appeal, his clients were entitled to a fullfledged hearing after notice to the State and not an abbreviated disposal in the shape of a preliminary hearing, however long that hearing might be. Thereupon, the court passed the following order: The appellants have challenged the constitutional validity of Clause (c) of SubRule (1) of Rule 15 of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules, which enables an appeal of the kind with which we are concerned, to be placed for hearing ex parte before the Court for admission. In that view of the matter, we think that unless the question of the constitutional validity of the rule is decided, we cannot have a preliminary hearing of this appeal for admission. Let the records, therefore, be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for giving such directions as he may deem fit and proper. This Bench has come to be seized of the case in the constitutional setting. Such is the scenario, the last and most crucial stage of which is the hearing before this Constitution Bench. 4. A little elucidation of the legal matrix which has given rise to the contentions may be useful. This Court has jurisdiction over a wide range and long reach of litigation under Article 136 of the Constitution which includes the power to grant leave to appeal in criminal matters. But this is a discretionary jurisdiction with drastic selfimposed limitations rarely realised by the gambling litigant and has hardly any semblance of an absolute right of appeal necessarily followed by a full debate after