The Patna High Court raised serious questions regarding the jurisdiction of a Division Bench (DB-3) to initiate suo motu criminal writ proceedings concerning the alleged assault on two High Court advocates by school guards outside Delhi Public School, Patna. The matter, registered on September 9 as a suo motu criminal writ by a bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey, came up for consideration before Acting Chief Justice P.B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha.
At the outset, the Acting Chief Justice noted that parties must clarify whether DB-3 could have entertained the urgency application and initiated proceedings despite not having the roster on the subject. The Court emphasized that although matters may be mentioned before a particular bench, the larger issue was whether a bench without the roster could judicially intervene in such circumstances.
The Advocate General, appearing for the State, expressed surprise that the matter was entertained the previous day. He informed the Court that the aggrieved lawyers, including the alleged victim, had met him at 1:30 PM on September 9, after which he immediately contacted the Senior Superintendent of Police. He submitted that the investigation of such offences lies exclusively with the police and that aggrieved persons have recourse before a magistrate, including the option to file a protest petition. “Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to seek an investigation in a particular manner,” he contended.
The Acting Chief Justice clarified that even the present bench does not have the authority to direct arrests, and no such order would be passed. Counsel pressing for action argued that no FIR had been registered until late in the afternoon on September 9, and that the matter had been brought before the Court since a female advocate had also been abused. He maintained that the prayer was limited to ensuring a fair investigation.
The Court, however, questioned the basis of assuming that a proper investigation would not take place and observed that the authorities must be given adequate time to act. Refusing to pass substantive directions, the bench noted that the grievance before it was not sufficiently clear, as no formal application outlining the exact relief sought had been filed.
The Court has now directed that on the next date of hearing, counsels must address two key issues: (i) whether Division Bench-3 could have initiated suo motu proceedings without having the relevant roster and without approval of the Acting Chief Justice on the administrative side, and
(ii) what specific relief is being sought in the matter. Additionally, the Investigating Officer has been asked to place an update on the steps taken so far. The case has been adjourned for a week.
Picture Source :