We Expect High Court To Exercise Restraint: SC Stays Order Directing That Parties To Matrimonial Dispute Be Produced Before It Through Police, Grants Liberty To Appear Virtually
|The Supreme Court has stayed the order passed by the Calcutta High Court directing parties to be produced before the Court through Police and criticised the High Court for not considering the medical ailments of the party and for not opting for Video Conferencing.
The Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition aggrieved by the order passed by the Calcutta High Court on May 14, 2024, in a criminal revisional application wherein the Court directed the Police Station to produce both the petitioners before the court on the next date of hearing.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “We have failed to comprehend the necessity of the direction of the High Court insisting for personal presence of the petitioner no.2 in Court in-person, despite being apprised that the petitioner no.2 has been suffering from severe medical conditions. From the materials placed on record we find that not only did the petitioner no.2 undergo an organ transplant in the recent past, he is afflicted by other ailments too calling for a surgery thus making it inadvisable for him to travel to Kolkata for attending court proceedings physically. That apart, the petitioner no.1 had physically appeared before the Court on 8th April, 2024 in deference to the order dated 31st January, 2024, yet, she too has been ordered to be produced in court by the police without apparent justification.”
Advocate Pinak Kumar Mitra appeared for the Petitioner.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court insisted on the personal presence of both parties including the ailing Petitioner No. 2 despite being aware of his medical ailments. Not only did the Petitioner No. 2 undergo an organ transplant in the recent past, he is afflicted by other ailments too calling for surgery thus making it inadvisable for him to travel to Kolkata to attend court proceedings physically.
On the previous date of hearing Petitioner No. 1 was present before the High Court physically, however, the second Petitioner could not remain present due to medical issues which were duly brought to the attention of the Court, yet, the penultimate paragraph of the order recorded that the Court “insists the presence of the petitioner no.2 on the next date of hearing”. “An observation appears to have been made by the Court to the effect that the medical documents which were filed did not reflect the petitioner no.2 being so medically incapacitated that he could not appear on 14th May, 2024, as fixed by the earlier order dated 08th April, 2024…Owing to the petitioner no.2 not remaining present on 14th May, 2024, both the petitioners are now required to personally remain present in Court on 22nd May, 2024 on being produced by the police.”, the Court said.
The Court said “If the Court thought it fit to interact and bring about a settlement between the parties, an attempt to achieve it by allowing the petitioners to attend proceedings through the virtual mode ought to have been made…The impugned order is bound to operate harshly against the petitioners. We expect the Court to exercise restraint unless any party repeatedly acts in breach of its order to undermine its dignity, prestige and majesty, thereby attracting the contempt jurisdiction. Exercise of discretion judiciously could have prevented the proceedings from reaching this Court.”
The Court also highlighted that despite the advancement of science and technology and with the introduction of facilities for virtual hearings in the High Courts, the Court did not consider it desirable to grant liberty to the two petitioners to appear before it through the virtual mode.
Accordingly, the Court stayed the High Court’s order requiring the personal appearance of both the petitioners and granted both the petitioners the liberty to appear before the High Court through the virtual mode.
Cause Title: Basudha Chakraborty & Anr. v. Neeta Chakraborty
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Pinak Kumar Mitra, AOR Sujoy Chatterjee Advocates Binish Kumar and Rishabh Singhle.