Union Of India Vs Rhea Chakraborty: A Petition Cannot Be Filed Against The Observations Made By A Court

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18th March, 2021.

JUDGES: S.A. Bobde, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian.

PARTIES
Union of India (Appellant)
Rhea Chakraborty (Respondent)
SUMMARY: The present case deals with the issue of whether or not a petition can be filed to challenge against mere observations made in a bail order.

OVERVIEW

1. The present petition was filed by the Central Government through the Narcotics Control Bureau against the observations made by the Bombay High Court while granting bail to actor Rhea Chakraborty in a case registered against her under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with the death of Sushant Singh Rajput.
2. The court, while hearing the petition, highlighted that the plea filed by the Central Government challenges only the observations made by the High Court and not the bail order itself.
3. This observation was made by the court after it was informed by the Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Central Government that the grant of bail in itself was not challenged in the plea filed.
4. After the observation by the court, the Solicitor General requested for time to amend the petition to include challenge against the grant of bail.
5. The court allowed this and posted the matter for hearing to next week.

ISSUES

The following issue was taken into consideration by the court:

• Whether or not a petition can be filed challenging against mere observations made in a bail order.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Art. 21 of the Constitution: Right to life and personal liberty.
• Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act): Punishment for financing illicit traffic and harboring offenders.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The Bombay High Court, while granting bail to the respondent, made observations regarding the scope of Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act to hold that mere giving of money to buy drugs and mere concealment of drug use by a person will not amount to financing illicit trade and harboring of offender as per the said section.
2. The High Court observed that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was not guilty of any offence punishable under Section 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) or any offence involving commercial quantity.
3. In response to the aforementioned order by the High Court, the Central Government, through the Narcotics Control Bureau, approached the Supreme Court against the order.
4. The Solicitor General, representing the appellants, contended that the High Court made certain wide ranging observations regarding the provisions of the NDPS Act, which may make the act unworkable.
5. The Solicitor General further contended that the interpretations by the High Court would render the act meaningless and make it very difficult for the agency to prosecute and ensure conviction.
6. The Solicitor General also contended that the grant of bail in itself had not been challenged in the petition.
7. The bench highlighted that the Central Government’s petition does not challenge the bail order and only challenges observations.
8. The court, in response to the arguments made by the Solicitor General, took the view that a petition cannot be filed challenging the observations made by the High Court. As the observations are prima facie, they cannot be challenged, held the court.
9. Taking into cognizance the contention made by the court, the Solicitor General sought time to amend the petition to include challenge against grant of bail. Allowing the request, the bench posted the matter to next week.

CONCLUSION

The issue that the judgment discusses is about filing petitions challenging the observations made by the High Courts in bail orders. The court, in the present case, held in the negative and stated that only orders can be challenged and observations made by the High Courts in bail orders cannot be challenged.

In the present case, the respondent was charged under the provisions of Sec. 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for financing and harboring illicit trade. Persons charged for offences charged under the provisions of Sec. 27A of the Act shall be liable to rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years, but may be extended to twenty years and a fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but may extend to two lakh rupees.

After a special NDPS court denied bail to the appellant, the Bombay High Court ruled that the appellant was not part of the network of drug dealers that she was alleged to have been associated with. She has not forwarded the drugs allegedly procured by her to somebody else to earn monetary or other benefits, the court held. The allegations against the respondent of spending money in procuring drugs for other people will not, therefore, mean that she had financed illicit traffic, the HC observed.

The Central Government, through the Narcotics Control Bureau, filed an appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court. The Solicitor General, representing the appellants, stated that the appellants were only challenging the observations made by the High Court, by stating that the High Court made certain wide ranging observations regarding the provisions of the NDPS Act, which may make the act unworkable. The Supreme Court, however, held that the observations made by the High Court cannot be challenged but that the orders themselves have to be challenged.

Taking into cognizance the observation made by the court, the Solicitor General sought time to amend the petition to include the order issued by the High Court itself. The court accepted the request and posted the matter for next week.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement