Whether single Judge can criticize decision of Division Bench?

In this backdrop, it is indeed unfortunate that the learned Single
Judge has embarked upon an adventure to disagree with the decision of a 
Division Bench in Ultra Home (supra), albeit, as a student of law‘. It is
not open to a Single Judge (and more particularly a trial court) to differ
from or critically appraise a decision of a Division Bench (and more
particularly of an appellate court). Once it is recognized that the decision
of the Division Bench is binding on the Single Judge, there is no need to
express any difference of opinion or disagreement or purport to give
reasons for the said difference of opinion or to even suggest that the
decision of the Division Bench may need re-consideration. That is only in
the domain of another Bench of co-equal strength. In any event, the
findings and observations of the learned Single Judge with respect to its
interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Dalia (supra), to the
extent they are contrary to the decision of the Division Bench in Ultra
Home (supra), are set aside.
 Lastly, and with some anguish, we may observe that we find it
difficult to comprehend as to why the learned Single Judge went to such
lengths so as to devote 18 paragraphs spanning from page 29 to page 43 of
the impugned judgment to record his difference of opinion with the
decision in Ultra Home (supra) when, according to the learned Single
Judge himself, the so-called difference of opinion did not come in his way 
in deciding the present case as it had no relevance‘, according to him, to
the present case. Such an unnecessary pursuit and adventure has been
undertaken by the learned Single Judge while at the same time the learned
Single Judge rued over the fact of overflowing dockets and heavy
workloads of courts. Why was such a fruitless and futile academic‘
exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge? This would remain a
mystery?
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 03.08.2016
 FAO(OS) 145/2016
M/S RSPL LIMITED 
v
MUKESH SHARMA & ANR ..
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA

Print Page

Whether right to free speech and expression includes right to criticize and dissent?

While quashing the “Look out circular”(LOC) issued against Miss Priya Parameswaran Pillai (Petitioner), a civil right activists who works for “Greenpeace India Society”, who was detained at Delhi Airport and was stopped from going UK to meet British Parliamentarians to discuss about violations of the rights of tribal communities and the role of British Company “Essar energy” in it, the division bench of Rajiv Shakdher and Rajiv Shakdher JJ held that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right and it flows directly from Article 21 of the Constitution of India which can be taken away only by procedure established  in law. Enforcing petitioner’s right of free speech and expression which includes the right to criticize and dissent, the Court further held that detaining the petitioner at the airport to prevent her from expressing her view, will also be violative of Article 19 (1)(a).

In the case at hand, the petitioner opposed the opening of a coal mine in Mahan, Madhya Pradesh (M.P.) by Mahan Coal Ltd., which is a joint venture between Hindalco and Essar Power Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Essar Energy. This coal mine had the potentiality of displacing the forest/ tribal communities and could impact the lives of many people who depend on forest produce. The petitioner wanted to discuss the same issue in front of British Parliamentarians. The counsel for respondent, Sanjay Jain, contended that petitioner’s opposition regarding the aforesaid issue in front of British Parliamentarians would negatively project the image of Government of India and which is ultimately going to hamper flow of investment by Multinational Corporations in FDI, infrastructure and manufacturing sector in the country. On the other hand, counsel for petitioner, Indira Jaising submitted that clause 8(j) of 2010 office memorandum under which LOC was issued, can only be issued against counter intelligence suspects, terrorists, and anti-national elements and expression of opinion on economic activities of the Government or investment decisions of multinational corporations cannot be construed as an anti-national activity.

The Court finally held that traveling abroad and expressing views without any criminal intent cannot be termed as anti-national; therefore preventing the petitioner from propagating her views on developmental activities in the Mahan coal block area cannot be construed as reasonable restriction under clause (2) of Article 19 of the COI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgement delivered on: 12.03.2015
WP(C) 774/2015
PRIYA PARAMESWARAN PILLAI
..... Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER,J
WP(C) 774/2015 & CM No.1352/2015 (interim relief)

Print Page