Supreme Court of India
Digital Supreme Court Reports
The Official Law Report Fortnightly ISSN: 3048-4839 (Online)
Home
Full Text

ANITA KUSHWAHA vs. PUSHAP SUDAN

SCR Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 560
Year/Volume: 2016/ Volume 9
Date of Judgment: 19 July 2016
Petitioner: ANITA KUSHWAHA
Disposal Nature: Referred Issue Answered
Neutral Citation: 2016 INSC 1186
Judgment Delivered by: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S. Thakur
Respondent: PUSHAP SUDAN
Case Type: TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) /1343/2008
Order/Judgment: Judgment
1. Headnote

Constitution of India:

Arts.32, 142 - Transfer petition - Whether Supreme Court has power to transfer a civil or criminal case pending in any court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to a Court outside that State and vice versa - Held: The provisions of s.25, CPC and that of s.406, Cr.P.C. as applicable to the rest of India, cannot be invoked by any litigant seeking transfer of any case to or from the State of Jammu and Kashmir - It is equally true that Jammu and Kashmir Code of Civil Procedure, 1977 and Jammu and Kashmir Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 also do not have any provision empowering the Supreme Court to direct transfer of any case civil or criminal from any Court in the State to a Court outside that State or vice versa - Resort to the Central or State Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedures for directing transfer of cases to or from the State is, therefore, ruled out - The fact that there is no such enabling provision for transfer from or to the State of Jammu and Kashmir does not detract from the power of a superior court to direct such transfer, if it is of the opinion that such a direction is essential to subserve the interest of justice - If access to justice is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Art.21, a violation actual or threatened of that right would justify the invocation of poivers under Art.32 - Any such exercise would be legitimate, as it would prevent the violation of the fundamental right of the citizens guaranteed under Art.21 - Apart from that, even Art.142 can be invoked to direct transfer of a case from one court to the other where the Court is satisfied that denial of an order of transfer from or to the Court in the State of Jammu and Kashmir will deny the citizen his/her right of access to justice - The provisions of Arts.32, 136 and 142 are, therefore,wide enough to empower Supreme Court to direct such transfer in appropriate situations - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.25 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.406.

Arts.14, 21 - Access to justice - Held: ls indeed a facet of right to life guaranteed under Art.21 - Access to justice may as well be the facet of the right guaranteed under Art.14 which guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws to not only citizens but non-citizens also - Citizens inability to access courts or any other adjudicatory mechanism provided for determination of rights and obligations is bound to result in denial of the guarantee contained in Art.14 both in relation to equality before law as well as equal protection of laws.

Access to justice - Principles of - Held: State must provide an effective adjudicatory mechanism; the mechanism so provided must be reasonably accessible in terms of distance; the process of adjudication must be speedy; and the litigants access to the adjudicatory process must be affordable.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.1 - Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.1 - General application of CPC and Cr.P.C to the State of Jammu and Kashmir - Held: CPC and also Cr.P.C, as applicable to the rest of the country specifically exclude the application thereof to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

2. Case referred
3. Act
      No Data Found!!!!!
4. Keyword
  • Constitution of India
  • Code of Civil Procedure
5. Equivalent citation
    Citation(s) 2016 AIR 3506 = 2016 (8) SCC 509 = 2016 (8) Suppl. SCC 509 = 2016 (8) JT 268 = 2016 (8) Suppl. JT 268 = 2016 (7) SCALE 235