Analysis: SC (Amendment) Rules 2019

Introduction

Constitutional provision

Article 145 of the Constitution of India enables the Supreme Court to make rules for regulating its own practice and procedure. Constitution itself provides as well as authorises the Parliament to vest further jurisdiction in Supreme Court by law for regulating the procedure to be followed by the Apex Court in exercise of such jurisdiction ensuring the independence of the top court. Supreme Court can prescribe the procedure with the approval of President of India.

Until the Parliament makes such a law, it is the rules made by Supreme Court that are required to be followed by the court i.e. such rules framed under Article 145, being subordinate legislation, are subjected to constitutional provisions and laws made by Parliament.

View taken by Supreme Court

It has been laid down in Nanavati vs State of Bombay (AIR1961 SC112) that the power to make rules of court as mentioned in article 145 is in the ambit of the power of SC to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it as provided in article 142 of the constitution.

Rules Amendment (news)

The Supreme Court thus made the Rules, as discussed below, further to amend the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 now be called as Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules, 2019 with the approval of the President while delegating aforesaid powers conferred by the Constitution. The amended rules came into force from the date of their publication in the official gazette/ notification which was issued on September 17, 2019.

Features of the amendment

Under Order VI, Rule 1 of the SC Rules of 2013, a Bench of the Court should have a minimum of 2 Judges. However, with the current amendment, unlike earlier when it was only during the vacation period when a single judge bench would decide on a case, Chief Justice of India can appoint a single judge, to decide transfer petitions and special leave petitions arising out of grant, dismissal or rejection of bail or anticipatory bail for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The amended rules stated that the single judge bench, nominated by CJI, would hear cases in regard to the application for transfer of cases under section 406 of Code of Criminal Procedure for transfer of cases from one HC to the other or one criminal Court to another and application of an urgent nature for transfer of cases under section 25 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Besides those specified, the CJI can from time to time notify any other category of cases that may be heard and disposed of finally by a single judge nominated by him. The new rules seem to expand the authority of the chief justice.

As per the sources, there are 59,616 cases yet to be adjudged in the Supreme Court. This attempt would help bring down the pendency in the Apex Court and improve the situation.

The change of hearing and disposal of cases by a Single Judge tends comes with its own disadvantages too. Considering the orders of the Supreme Court are final and not appealable, decision taken by a Single Judge may not be unbiased, just and constitutional whereas benches of larger composition in the top court seek to ensure a proper discussion of varied opinions between the judges before arriving at any decision which may also be a landmark judgement. Such rationale and check may not find its place otherwise.

In addition to, sitting of single judge, an amendment has also been made to Order XIII, Rule 3. This rule provides that Advocates-On-Record and parties-in-person can apply for certified copies of filings and judgments. According to the new provision, an advocate who argued the case or an advocate authorised by the Advocate-On-Record in the case can apply for such certified copies.

It also provides the Registrar shall call the original record of the case in the criminal appeals involving sentence of life imprisonment or death penalty provided such records be requisitioned in other cases only when specifically ordered by the Court.

A minor change has also been made to Order IV, Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2013, dealing with the matters of appearance of advocates. Under the old rules, petitioners in jail were required to file an application seeking permission to argue in person, and hold a meeting with the registrar. The amendment to the aforesaid order provides the exemption from the need to interacting with the registrar which may further speed up and smoothen the process of trial. Some other minor procedural changes have also been made in the rules.

(Richa is second year law student at Faculty of law, Delhi University)