1. THE INSTANT CASE IS MAINTAINABLE UNDER ARTICLE 133 OF THE CONSTITUTUION Art.

133 deal with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court from the High court in the civil cases. As amended by Constitution (Thirtieth Amendment) Act, 1972 , the article allows such appeal if (i) the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance , and (ii) in the opinion of the High Court , the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. The certificate is issued under article 134A. There is no ground for restricting the expression civil proceeding (in article 133) to those proceeding which arise out of the civil suits (or proceeding which are tried as civil suits ) nor is there any rational basis for excluding , from its purview , proceedings instituted and tried in the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 226, where the aggrieved party seeks the relief against infringement of civil rights by authorities purporting to act in the exercise of the powers conferred upon them by revenue statutes , or disputes between landlord and tenant; 1 The proceeding for relief against the infringement of a civil right of a person is a civil proceeding.2There is a clear case of infringement of the civil right, the right to speech and expression which has been upgraded to a Fundamental Right vide the Constitution of India3 and recognized by various international conventions including International Convention for Civil and Political Rights.4 2. THE HIGH COURT HAS ISSUED THE CERTIFICATE FOR APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT UNDER 134 A OF THE CONSTITUTION. The High Court has already certified that the instant case is a fit case for the appeal to the Supreme Court vide issue of a certificate under article 134 A .The High Court has issued the certificate upon its satisfaction that the case involves a substantial question of general importance and that in the opinion of the High Court the said question needs to decided by the Supreme Court. Any party appealing to the Supreme Court under Art.133 (1) is free to urge that a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of this Constitution has been wrongly
1 2

Prasanna Kumar Roy Karmakar v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1996 SC 1517. Ibid. 3 Constitution, Art.19. 4 ICCPR, Art.

decided.5 In the instant case, this appellant is approaching this Honble court challenging the constitutionality of S.66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 together with an application to quash the proceedings pending before the subordinate court against the appellant under the aforementioned provision. 3. THE SUPREME COURT HAS JURISDICTION UNDER ART.142 OF THE

CONSTITUTION. Under ART. 142(1) , in the exercise of its jurisdiction , the Supreme Court is entitled to pass any decree , or make any order , as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter peding before it . Therefore although the ambit of the power is wide it should be limited to the short compass of the actual dispute before the court and not to what might reasonably be connected with or related to such matter . ART.142 (1) contains no limitation regarding the causes or the circumstances in which the power can be exercised nor does it lay down any condition to be satisfied before such power is exercised . The exercise of the power is left completely to the discretion of the Highest Court . Referring to ART 142(1) , the Supreme Court in Supreme Court Bar association v. union of india , has characterized its own role in these words.6 Under Art.142(1) coupled withs ARTS. 32 and 136, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to quash criminal proceeding are initiated on concocted facts or false evidence , or if the proceedings are intiated for oblique purposes . The power of the Court under ART 142 insofar as quashing of criminal proceedings are concerned is not exhausted by ss.320 or 321 or 482 Cr.p.c, or all of them put together .7 The High Court can exercise the power under 482 Cr.p.c to real and substantial justice and to prevent abuse of process of court ,When exceptional circumstances warranted the exercise of such power. Once the circumstances in a given case where held to be such as to attract the provisions of ART. 142 or ART 32 and 226 of the Constitution it would be open to the Supreme

5 6

Constitution, Art.132(2). AIR 1998 SC 1895 7 R.S. Antulay v. Nayak , AIR 1991 SC 1531 : Keshub Mahindra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 6 SCC 129 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 1124 , Delhi Judicial Service Association v. State of Gujarat AIR 1991 SC 2210.

Court to exercise its extra ordinary powers under ART. 142 of the Constitution to quash the proceeding . the continuance whereof would only to amount to abuse of the process of court8 The Supreme Court has emphasized that the power given to it under the ART. 142 is conceived to meet the sitations which cannot be effectively and appropriately tackled by the existing legal provisions .The Supreme Court has left the power ART 142 undefined and uncatalogued so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded to Under Article 142 of the Constitution this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any 'cause' or 'matter' pending before it. The expression "cause" or "matter" would include any proceeding pending in court and it would cover almost every kind of proceeding in court including civil or criminal. Though there is no provision like Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code conferring express power on the Supreme Court to quash or set aside any criminal proceedings pending before a criminal court to prevent abuse of process of the court, but the inherent power of this Court under Article 142 coupled with the plenary and residuary powers under Articles 32 and 136 embraces power to quash criminal proceedings pending before any court to do complete justice in the matter before this Court. If the court is satisfied that the proceedings in a criminal case are being utilised for oblique purposes or if the same are continued on manufactured and false evidence or if no case is made out on the admitted facts, it would be in the ends of justice to set aside or quash the criminal proceedings. Once this Court is satisfied that the criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process of court, it would quash such proceedings to ensure justice. This Court's power under Article 142(1) to do "complete justice" is entirely of different level and of a different quality. What would be the need of complete justice in a cause or matter would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and while exercising that power the Court would take into consideration the express provisions of a substantive statute. Any prohibition or restriction contained in ordinary laws cannot act as a limitation on the constitutional power of this Court. Once this Court has seisin of a cause or matter before it, it has power to issue any order or direction to do "complete justice" in the matter. Monica Kumar (Dr.) v. State of UP, (2008) 8 SCC 781. suit the given situation.9 4. A CASE CANNOT BE DISMISSED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS ALONE.

8 9

Gian singh v. State of Punjab SLP (crl.)8989 of 2010, CBI v Ravishanker Prasad and ors 2009 6SCC 351 Delhi development authority v. Skipper construction company AIR 1996 SC 2005 : (1996) 4 SCC 622

As it has been rightly held by justice P.n Bhagavati in SP gupta v. Union of India10, Procedure is but a handmaiden of justice and thecause of justice can never be allowed to be thwarted by any procedural technicalities The procedure is the hand maiden of the justice and not the mistress . the Court must always be anxious to do justice and to prevent victories by way of technical knockouts .11 5. THERE IS NO ALTERNATE REMEDY IN THE INSTANT CASE. The appellant had already approached the High Court of Neethisthan under Section 482 of the Code Criminal Procedure 1973 for quashing the FIR and under Art 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of Section 66 A of the Information Technology Act 2000 on the ground of violation of Art 14, Art 19(1) (a) and Art 21 of the Constitution. However the High Court dismissed the case on the ground that the case can be effectively defended before the Trial Court .which is grossly improper and the Hight Court thus failed in granting justice to the needy. The appellant thus has no other remedy to approach this Honble court

10 11

AIR 1982 SC 149, RN JADI v. Subash Chandra AIR 2007 SC 2571

[Art 134 c , the Supreme Court can hear an appeal in a criminal case if the High Court certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the court ]