Patna High Court puts off bench after Laloo questions SC order on his cases

These objections, ironically, mark a U-turn in Laloo’s stand.

When the Supreme Court, on April 26, ‘‘requested’’ the Patna High Court to dispose of Laloo’s petition ‘‘within one month’’ and even named the judges who should hear the case, Laloo’s counsel Ram Jethmalani supported the decision.

However, in Patna today, his counsel P N Pandey questioned the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction on various grounds all of which were duly recorded by Chief Justice Rai.

Rai also made it clear that he would take up the issue of constituting the bench of Justices Aftab Alam and Chandramauli Kumar Prasad—as proposed by the apex court—only after the next SC hearing due on May 10 when Laloo’s counsel might get an opportunity to challenge the validity of its April 26 order.

On the objections raised by Laloo’s counsel, Rai said: ‘‘If the apex court makes a request to the High Court, then that is a command of the Supreme Court and I as a judge of this Court for more than 15 years cannot even imagine disobeying the order of the Supreme Court…I cannot express anything about the worth of the submissions…for the simple reason that the matter is before the Supreme Court…’’

Rai added: ‘‘If the High Court will not respect the order of the Supreme Court, who else will respect (it). The order of the Supreme Court is binding on me …’’

According to Rai’s order, Laloo’s counsel argued that the apex court could not have constituted the High Court bench even under Article 142 of the Constitution, which confers all residuary powers on the Supreme Court to meet the ends of justice. Quoting a 2004 judgment of the Supreme Court, the counsel asserted that under Article 142, ‘‘the apex court cannot nullify the statutory provisions.’’

Rai also sought to dispel the ‘‘wrong impression’’ that he had in any way been associated with Laloo’s petition challenging the validity of the Governor’s sanction to prosecute him as he had failed to consult the then chief minister of Bihar, Rabri Devi.

Rai said that ‘‘mischievous allegations are being made and many things are being said in order to defame the High Court. The politicians may have their fights but the platform for that is another place and not the High Court.’’

Regarding the Supreme Court’s unusual move to name the judges who will hear Laloo’s petition, Rai quoted a 2004 judgment of the apex court holding that ‘‘the High Court is not subordinate to the Supreme Court but in view of the hierarchical system, the Supreme Court is placed over the High Court.’’