A judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner and ought not to wear spectacles so that he can see what he intends to see, the Supreme Court today said.
The apex court did not appreciate the opinion expressed by Allahabad High Court in a case and said some opinions were general in nature and directions fall in the legislative domain.
"A judge should not perceive a situation in a generalised manner. He ought not to wear a pair of spectacles so that he can see what he intends to see. There has to be a set of facts to express an opinion and that too, within the parameters of law," a bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra said while setting aside the order of the Allahabad High Court.
The high court had passed a slew of "sweeping directions" regarding policing, investigation, filling of vacancies in police department and others in a case arising out of alleged forgery case.
The bench also comprising Justice Amitava Roy said it is convinced opinion that the high court has crossed the boundaries of the controversy that was before it.
"The courts are required to exercise power of judicial review regard being had to the controversy before it. There may be a laudable object in the mind but it must flow from the facts before it or there has to be a specific litigation before it.
"Additionally, the High Court should have reminded itself that it cannot enter into the domain where amendment to legislations and other regulations are necessary," it said.
The apex court said it is the duty of the state government to discharge its obligations in the matters relating to law and order and remain alert to the issues that emerge.
"It has a duty also to see that the investigations are speedily completed in an appropriate manner. If there is a failure of law-and-order situation, the executive is to be blamed. In the maintenance of law-and-order situation the judicial officers are not to be involved. But the executive has to remain absolutely alive to its duties and we are sure, the state government shall look into the aspects and endeavour to see that appropriate steps are taken to maintain the law and order situation," it said.
(Reopens LGD 25)
The apex court said some of the directions passed by the high court are in the sphere of policy and it cannot take steps for framing a policy.
"Be it stated, the directions may definitely show some anxiety on the part of the judges, but it is to be remembered that directions are not issued solely out of concern. They have to be founded on certain legally justifiable principles that have roots in the laws of the country," the bench said while setting aside the order of high court and allowing the appeal of Uttar Pradesh government which challenged the order.
The state government said that several directions passed by the high court fall exclusively in the domain of legislature and even require amendment of IPC and CrPC which are central laws.
"It is necessary to state that it is expected that the high courts while dealing with the lis are expected to focus on the process of adjudication and decide the matter.
"The concept, what is thought of or experienced cannot be ingrained or engrafted into an order solely because such a thought has struck the adjudicator. It must flow from the factual base and based on law," the apex court said.
While elaborating it said, "there cannot be general comments on the investigation or for that matter, issuance of host of directions for constituting separate specialised cadre managed by officials or to require an affidavit to be filed whether sanctioned strength of police is adequate or not to maintain law and order or involvement of judicial officers or directions in the like manner".
