Fresh doubts are being aired over the legality of the July 25 verdict of a Kerala High Court division bench headed by Chief Justice Manjula Chellur ordering restoration of ‘grabbed’ lands to ‘encroachers’ in Munnar. The verdict was passed after the Chief Justice was transferred and legal experts now say that the verdict might have gone against Supreme Court guidelines.
The verdict was passed in three cases related to takeover by the Government of grabbed lands, eight months after completion of hearing of the arguments by the Court and this was said to be against the Supreme Court guidelines instructing High Courts not to reserve orders for more than two months after conclusion of hearing.
The division bench headed by Justice Chellur had stirred a hornets’ nest on July 25 by pronouncing the verdict — which in all senses went in favour of the hospitality companies accused of grabbing public land in Munnar and against the Government’s interests — two days after she received order transferring her to the Kolkata High Court.
Senior lawyers in the State and State Assembly’s Opposition leader VS Achuthanandan had alleged that the verdict passed by Justice Chellur after she received her transfer order might not have legal and constitutional validity. It was alleged that the Court had waited eight months after the completion of arguments to pass the order and that too after the transfer of the Chief Justice.
“That was more a matter of legal propriety than strict legal validity but the other point is far more serious as the delay in passing the verdict was unacceptable in the light of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2001. The High Court bench should effectively lose its authority to pass a verdict after such an eight-month delay”, said a senior judge of the Kerala High Court.
As per the guidelines issued for the High Courts in the judgement of August 6, 2001 in the Anil Rai v/s State of Bihar case by a bench comprising Justices KT Thomas and RP Sethi, the Supreme Court had said that verdicts should not be delayed beyond two months after the completion of hearing and the bench could be changed if verdict did not come in six months.
The guidelines say, “On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgement is not pronounced within a period of two months, the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the bench concerned to the pending matter”.