Cuttack: In an unprecedented instance, a single judge bench of Justice Biswanath Rath of the Orissa High Court disapproved the manner in which a previous order rendered by him was declared not to be a ‘precedent’ by a division bench headed by former Chief Justice S Muralidhar (now retired) and Justice Gourishankar Satapathy.
The division bench had passed the order on April 13 in a writ appeal against one of his earlier judgments regarding the renewal of a passport of woman, Madhusmita Samanta of Jagatsinghpur. Following which, the passport authorities rejected her application, citing the order that refused to allow a man with criminal past to get a renewal.
Justice Rath, however, described it as “absolutely unreasonable and unwarranted” and “abuse of the process of law” and directed the passport authorities to renew her document within a week.
In his earlier order, Justice Rath had said: “There is in fact no restriction in the renewal of the passport or even grant of passport in the pendency of the criminal proceeding involving the party concerned which may be a time-based renewal or grant.”
Later acting on the central government’s writ appeal, the division bench of Chief Justice in the April 13 judgment nullified Justice Rath’s order while ruling that the single judge’s decision will not constitute precedent and will be treated as having been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. “The questions of law arising from the said impugned judgment are left open for decision in some other appropriate case,” the division bench also said.
Taking exception to it, Justice Rath questioned the rationale of passing a verdict without giving any reason. “This court, in its entire practice period of 28 years and judgeship of 9 years, has never come across in taking out the effect of such judgments in just three lines ordered by a higher bench…. The division bench in such matters is required to apply its mind and give reason in taking out effect of such judgments, otherwise such judgments will not be applicable in the legal parlance,” he said in his August 10 order.
He also criticised the division bench for apparently ignoring all the Supreme Court judgments cited by him to justify his decision in favour of renewal of passports of persons against whom criminal cases are pending.
In 2021, the Supreme Court observed that renewal of passport cannot be refused merely on the ground of pendency of criminal appeal. The applicant has to take permission to go abroad only, not for the renewal of the passport, it added.
