http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SPENCER & CO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: VISHWADARSHAN DISTRIBUTORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/12/1994

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (1) 259        JT 1995 (1)   113  1994 SCALE  (5)93

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: The Order of the Court was pronounced by PUNCHHI,  J.- It has been said before, and needs to be  said again,  what  we  are  about  to  through  this  order,   to strengthen  the  functional chains which pull  the  judicial machine  to  its  destination  on  the  track  laid  by  the Constitution. 2.We have on our board Special Leave Petition Nos. 12597- 600  of 1993 against the judgment and order dated  29-4-1993 of  a  Division  Bench of the High Court  of  Judicature  at Madras passed in some CMPs in OSA Nos. 6973 of 1993.   These are at the instance of the first and the second defendant in the  original suit filed by the plaintiff-first  respondent, pending before a learned Single Judge of the High Court,  in which in intra-court appellate jurisdiction the  petitioners have   been   subjected  to  certain   interim   orders   of significance by the Division Bench.  This Court on 10-9-1993 ordered issuance of notice in the special leave petitions as also  on  the application for stay  returnable  within  four weeks.   On  response,  and consideration  of  the  counter- affidavits filed by the respondents and rejoinder affidavits by the petitioners, we had on 14-1-1994 passed the following order:               "Let the matter stand by three months.  In the               meantime, parties’ counsel shall approach  the               High  Court for an early disposal of  the  OSA               Nos.  69-73  of  1993 pending  before  it  and               apprise to us on the next date of hearing  the               result of it.  We have no doubt that the  High               Court  when approached for the  purpose  would               give  the matter due attention as is  expected               by us." 3.   In order to await the outcome of the order we had  kept the matter adjourned from time to time when a Division Bench of  the Madras High Court consisting of Hon’ble  Mr  Justice Gulab C. Gupta (now Chief Justice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

262 of Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Hon’ble Mr Justice K.A. Thanikkachalam passed on 18-8-1994 the following order:               "These applications are filed for fixing early               hearing  of  the  appeal.  The  order  of  the               Supreme Court dated 14-1-1994 in Special Leave               Appeal   (Civil)   No.   12597-600/93(AN)   is               produced  before us to support  the  aforesaid               prayer.   We have considered the  matter  with               the seriousness it deserves; but find  nothing               important  so  as to give  precedence  to  the               appeals over large numbers of pending  appeals               in  this Court.  The appellant must  take  his               chance   strictly   in  order  in   which   he               approached this Court by filing these appeals,               The applications are rejected." 4.   Patently  our order dated 14-1-1994 has  been  flouted, which is a matter of grave concern to us.  On our part  what else  is  expected?  It has obvious ramifications,  far  and significant.   We  therefore have on our own  solicited  the advice  of  the Solicitor General of India  Mr  Dipankar  P. Gupta, besides that of Mr K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate, the ex-Attorney General of India representing one of the parties instantly,  and Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate  appearing for  the  other  parties, as to what step need  we  take  in respect of the Hon’ble but erring Judges of the High  Court. Conceivably our action has parameters ranging between  total apathy and punishment for contempt after initiating contempt proceeding.   They have, in all seriousness, in  one  voice, advised us to show at this juncture judicial  statesmanship, and  let the present order go on record, more as a  reminder and  a message, travelling far and wide, less as a  warning, solely  to uphold and preserve the independence and  majesty of the Supreme Court, as the highest court of justice in the Sovereign  Republic of India; a pillar of the body  politic, established  under the Constitution, conferred with  plenary powers under Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the  Constitution. We  appreciate  and  value their advice.   We  would  rather remain  advised  on a matter like this, for then we  are  on sure ground. 5.   The Articles above referred to are reproduced hereafter as a reminding exercise:               "141.   Law  declared by Supreme Court  to  be               binding on all courts.The law declared by  the               Supreme  Court shall be binding on all  courts               within the territory of India.               142. Enforcement  of  decrees and  orders  of               Supreme  Court  and orders  as  to  discovery,               etc.- (1) The Supreme Court in the exercise of               its jurisdiction may pass such decree or  make               such order as is necessary for doing  complete               justice in any cause or matter pending  before               it, and any decree so passed or order so  made               shall be enforceable throughout the  territory               of  India in such manner as may be  prescribed               by  or  under any law made by  Parliament  and               until provision in that behalf is so made,  in               such  manner  as the President  may  by  order               prescribe.               (2)Subject  to  the provisions of  any  law               made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme               Court shall, as respects the whole of the               263               territory  of India, have all and every  power

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

             to make any order for the purpose of  securing               the attendance of any person, the discovery or               production   of   any   documents,   or    the               investigation or punishment of any contempt of               itself.               144, Civil and judicial authorities to act  in               aid  of the Supreme Court.-  All  authorities,               civil and judicial, in the territory of  India               shall act in aid of the Supreme Court." 6. Ex facie courtesy is the blend of our order of 14-1-1994. Outwardly it is neither commanding in nature nor  explicitly in  terms of a direction. Such is not the sheen and tone  of our  order,  meant  as it was,  for  a  high  constitutional institution,  being  the High Court. It comes  from  another high      constitutional     institution    (this     Court) hierarchically  superior in the corrective ladder. When  one superior  speaks to another it is always in language  sweet, soft and melodious; more suggestive than directive. Judicial language is always chaste. 7. Traditions and norms in this regard, well-established and followed  in  this country since time immemorial,  are  best reflected  in  the "Song Celestial", the Bhagavad  Gita.  It would  for  the  purpose be apposite to  turn  to  the  18th Chapter  of  the Bhagavad Gita,  containing  the  concluding portion  of the dialogue between Lord Krishna, the  Best  of Beings,  (Purushotamma)  and  Arjuna, the  Best  of  Humans, (Narotamma),  both superiors in themselves. Verse 63 in  the words of Lord Krishna is:      guhyad guhyataram maya      vimrishayaitad eshneshena      yathecchasi tatha kuru              Translation Thus  I have explained to you the most confidential  of  all knowledge.  Deliberate on this fully, and then do  what  you wish to do.                                            (emphasis ours) 8.   Verse 73 containing the answering words of Arjuna is:                 nashto mohah smritir labdha                  tvat prasaddan mayachyuta                  sthito’smi gata-sandehah                   karishye vachanam tava                        Translation               O infallible one, my illusion is now gone.   I               have  regained my memory by Your mercy, and  I               am  now  firm  and  free  from  doubt  and  am               prepared    to   act   according    to    Your               instructions.              (emphasis ours) For Arjuna, the freedom given to act as he wished to, was an illusion;  acting  in conformity with  the  instructions  of Krishna  a  bounden duty.  This  message    has  perceptibly percolated  down as part of Indian culture,  philosophy  and behavioural  setting  the  tenor  in  the  Constitution  for interaction between the 264 high constitutional authorities and institutions.  One needs only to be aware of this thought with which the Constitution is soaked. 9.   Recently,  on a lesser aberration, this Court in  Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra’ had occasion to strike a sad note in the following words: (SCC pp. 31-32, paras 5-6)               "5. We are saddened to notice that in spite of               the  Court’s request contained in  this  order               dated   6-2-1991,  the  High  Court  has   not               disposed of the review petition till now.  The               High  Court  was requested to dispose  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

             said writ petition within four months from the               date  of the said order and, at any  rate,  by                             30-9-1991.   It is more than two  years  since               the  order  was  made.   While  we   certainly               respect the independence of the High Court and               recognise  that it is a co-equal  institution,               we cannot but say, at the same time, that  the               constitutional scheme and judicial  discipline               requires  that the High Court should give  due               regard  to the orders of this Court which  are               binding on all courts within the territory  of               India.   The  request made in  this  case  was               contained  in  a judicial order.  It  does  no               credit  to either institution that it has  not               been  heeded to.  We hope and trust  that  the               delay in the disposal of the review is  either               accidental  or  on account of  some  or  other               procedural  problem.  Be that as it  may,  the               present  situation  would not have  arisen  if               only the review petition had been disposed  of               within  the  time contemplated  in  the  order               dated 6-2-1990.               6.    In  this view of the matter, the  IA  is               disposed of with the following directions:               (1)We  reiterate  our request to  the  High               Court  to  dispose  of  the  review   petition               expeditiously,  at any rate within two  months               of this order.               (2) (3) The  case  which  we are dealing with is  far  more  angular because there is a deliberate and conscious obstruction, put and  recorded by the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court,  even when  the judicial order of this Court dated  14-1-1994  was before  them, in support of the prayer for an early  durated hearing of the appeal.  The case in hand is of a negative or reverse  action,  whereas Bayer India case 1 was  barely  of inaction, far less in gravity. 10.  The  afore-narrated  words, we  think,  presently,  are enough  to assert the singular constitutional role  of  this Court,  and  correspondingly of the assisting  role  of  all authorities,  civil or judicial, in the territory of  India, towards  it, who are mandated by the Constitution to act  in aid of this Court.  That the High Court is one such judicial authority  covered under Article 144 of the Constitution  is beyond  question.  The order dated 14-1-1994 of  this  Court was  indeed  a  judicial  order  and  otherwise  enforceable throughout  the territory of India under Article 142 of  the Constitution.   The High Court was bound to come in  aid  of this Court when it required the High Court to have 1 (1993) 3 SCC 29  265 its  order  worked  out.  The language  of  request  oftenly employed  by this Court in such situations is to be read  by the  High  Court  as  an obligation,  in  carrying  out  the constitutional  mandate, maintaining the writ of this  Court running large throughout the country. 11.  Therefore, in these circumstances, we upturn the  order of the High Court dated 18-8-1994 and reiterate our  request to it to dispose of OSA Nos. 69-73 of 1993 expeditiously, at any rate now within one month from the date of communication of  this  Order, as this Court awaits  the  result  thereof. Orders be communicated to the High Court forthwith.   Copies thereof  for information be also sent to the Hon’ble  Judges of the Division Bench with our utmost respect. 12.  The special leave petitions be listed on 31-1-1995.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

266