Bombay HC assigns third judge to give opinion on split verdict on pleas against amended IT Rules

Meanwhile, the Centre informed the Bombay High Court that its statement of not notifying FCU will continue until the third judge takes up an interim application for further continuance for consideration.

On January 31, a division bench of the Bombay High Court had delivered a split verdict on a batch of petitions challenging the amended IT Rules. While Justice Gautam S Patel had agreed with the petitioners’ contentions and struck down the amendment, Justice Neela K Gokhale upheld the government’s side.

Under the HC Rules, the bench had directed its Registry to place the petitions before Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya for referring it to a third judge.

Appearing for the Centre on that day, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the High Court that the FCU would not be notified for 10 days till February 9. After Mehta submitted he did not have instructions to extend this indefinitely, the HC noted it is a matter of ‘administrative courtesy to the Chief Justice and to the third Judge who will have to take up these matters”.

However, on February 5, petitioners including stand-up comedian Kunal Kamra and others had approached Chief Justice Upadhyaya, apprehending that a third judge had not been assigned to hear the matter. They also said that the judge would not be competent to decide on the issue of extension of the Centre’s statement as per HC Rules and could only decide on the issue of differing opinions in a split verdict.

Senior advocate Navroz Seervai, representing Kamra, had sought that the bench led by Justice Patel be reconstituted to decide on the issue of extension of the Centre’s statement. CJ Upadhyaya then reconstituted the said bench to sit on Monday, February 6.

On February 6, Justice Patel-led bench noted the bench incorrectly observed that a substantive application be made to a third judge for further continuance of the centre’s statement. After he opposed the petitioner’s interim application, the bench had requested SG Mehta to not notify the FCU till the third judge rendered a tie-breaking opinion on the split verdict.

On Thursday, the bench noted that the two judges did not agree on passing an order of continuation of interim relief beyond the period for which SG Mehta was willing to make a statement in that regard.

Mehta said the Centre was continuing the statement till the third judge took up pleas seeking interim relief for consideration or hearing. He said it is unknown at this point what will transpire on that day and he had no instructions to make further commitments before the bench on Thursday. The bench accepted the same.

After the third judge renders his opinion, the bench will reassemble to pronounce judgment per majority.