It has been said before, and needs to be said again, what we are about to through this order, to strengthen the functional chains which pull the judicial machine to its destination on the track laid by the Constitution. 2.We have on our board Special Leave Petition Nos. 12597600 of 1993 against the judgment and order dated 29-4-1993 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in some CMPs in OSA Nos. 6973 of 1993. These are at the instance of the first and the second defendant in the original suit filed by the plaintiff-first respondent, pending before a learned Single Judge of the High Court, in which in intra-court appellate jurisdiction the petitioners have been subjected to certain interim orders of significance by the Division Bench. This Court on 10-9-1993 ordered issuance of notice in the special leave petitions as also on the application for stay returnable within four weeks. On response, and consideration of the counteraffidavits filed by the respondents and rejoinder affidavits by the petitioners, we had on 14-1-1994 passed the following order:
"Let the matter stand by three months. In the
meantime, parties’ counsel shall approach the
High Court for an early disposal of the OSA
Nos. 69-73 of 1993 pending before it and
apprise to us on the next date of hearing the
result of it. We have no doubt that the High
Court when approached for the purpose would
give the matter due attention as is expected
by us." 3. In order to await the outcome of the order we had kept the matter adjourned from time to time when a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr Justice Gulab C. Gupta (now Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh High Court) and Hon’ble Mr Justice K.A. Thanikkachalam passed on 18-8-1994 the following order:
"These applications are filed for fixing early
hearing of the appeal. The order of the
Supreme Court dated 14-1-1994 in Special Leave
Appeal (Civil) No. 12597-600/93(AN) is
produced before us to support the aforesaid
prayer. We have considered the matter with
the seriousness it deserves; but find nothing
important so as to give precedence to the
appeals over large numbers of pending appeals
in this Court. The appellant must take his
chance strictly in order in which he
approached this Court by filing these appeals,
The applications are rejected." 4. Patently our order dated 14-1-1994 has been flouted, which is a matter of grave concern to us. On our part what else is expected? It has obvious ramifications, far and significant. We therefore have on our own solicited the advice of the Solicitor General of India Mr Dipankar P. Gupta, besides that of Mr K. Parasaran, Senior Advocate, the ex-Attorney General of India representing one of the parties instantly, and Shri G.L. Sanghi, Senior Advocate appearing for the other parties, as to what step need we take in respect of the Hon’ble but erring Judges of the High Court. Conceivably our action has parameters ranging between total apathy and punishment for contempt after initiating contempt proceeding. They have, in all seriousness, in one voice, advised us to show at this juncture judicial statesmanship, and let the present order go on record, more as a reminder and a message, travelling far and wide, less as a warning, solely to uphold and preserve the independence and majesty of the Supreme Court, as the highest court of justice in the Sovereign Republic of India; a pillar of the body politic, established under the Constitution, conferred with plenary powers under Articles 141, 142 and 144 of the Constitution. We appreciate and value their advice. We would rather remain advised on a matter like this, for then we are on sure ground. 5. The Articles above referred to are reproduced hereafter as a reminding exercise:
"141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be
binding on all courts.The law declared by the
Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts
within the territory of India.
142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of
Supreme Court and orders as to discovery,
etc.- (1) The Supreme Court in the 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, and any decree so passed or order so made
shall be enforceable throughout the territory
of India in such manner as may be prescribed
by or under any law made by Parliament and
until provision in that behalf is so made, in
such manner as the President may by order
prescribe.
(2)Subject to the provisions of any law
made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme
Court shall, as respects the whole of the
territory of India, have all and every power
to make any order for the purpose of securing
the attendance of any person, the discovery or
production of any documents, or the
investigation or punishment of any contempt of
itself.
144, Civil and judicial authorities to act in
aid of the Supreme Court.- All authorities,
civil and judicial, in the territory of India
shall act in aid of the Supreme Court." 6. Ex facie courtesy is the blend of our order of 14-1-1994. Outwardly it is neither commanding in nature nor explicitly in terms of a direction. Such is not the sheen and tone of our order, meant as it was, for a high constitutional institution, being the High Court. It comes from another high constitutional institution (this Court) hierarchically superior in the corrective ladder. When one superior speaks to another it is always in language sweet, soft and melodious; more suggestive than directive. Judicial language is always chaste. 7. Traditions and norms in this regard, well-established and followed in this country since time immemorial, are best reflected in the "Song Celestial", the Bhagavad Gita. It would for the purpose be apposite to turn to the 18th Chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, containing the concluding portion of the dialogue between Lord Krishna, the Best of Beings, (Purushotamma) and Arjuna, the Best of Humans, (Narotamma), both superiors in themselves. Verse 63 in the words of Lord Krishna is:
guhyad guhyataram maya
vimrishayaitad eshneshena
yathecchasi tatha kuru
Translation Thus I have explained to you the most confidential of all knowledge. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do.
(emphasis ours) 8. Verse 73 containing the answering words of Arjuna is:
nashto mohah smritir labdha
tvat prasaddan mayachyuta
sthito’smi gata-sandehah
karishye vachanam tava
Translation
O infallible one, my illusion is now gone. I
have regained my memory by Your mercy, and I
am now firm and free from doubt and am
prepared to act according to Your
instructions. (emphasis ours) For Arjuna, the freedom given to act as he wished to, was an illusion; acting in conformity with the instructions of Krishna a bounden duty. This message has perceptibly percolated down as part of Indian culture, philosophy and behavioural setting the tenor in the Constitution for interaction between the high constitutional authorities and institutions. One needs only to be aware of this thought with which the Constitution is soaked. 9. Recently, on a lesser aberration, this Court in Bayer India Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra’ had occasion to strike a sad note in the following words: (SCC pp. 31-32, paras 5-6)
"5. We are saddened to notice that in spite of
the Court’s request contained in this order
dated 6-2-1991, the High Court has not
disposed of the review petition till now. The
High Court was requested to dispose of the
said writ petition within four months from the
date of the said order and, at any rate, by
30-9-1991. It is more than two years since
the order was made. While we certainly
respect the independence of the High Court and
recognise that it is a co-equal institution,
we cannot but say, at the same time, that the
constitutional scheme and judicial discipline
requires that the High Court should give due
regard to the orders of this Court which are
binding on all courts within the territory of
India. The request made in this case was
contained in a judicial order. It does no
credit to either institution that it has not
been heeded to. We hope and trust that the
delay in the disposal of the review is either
accidental or on account of some or other
procedural problem. Be that as it may, the
present situation would not have arisen if
only the review petition had been disposed of
within the time contemplated in the order
dated 6-2-1990.
6. In this view of the matter, the IA is
disposed of with the following directions:
(1)We reiterate our request to the High
Court to dispose of the review petition
expeditiously, at any rate within two months
of this order.
(2) (3) The case which we are dealing with is far more angular because there is a deliberate and conscious obstruction, put and recorded by the Hon’ble Judges of the High Court, even when the judicial order of this Court dated 14-1-1994 was before them, in support of the prayer for an early durated hearing of the appeal. The case in hand is of a negative or reverse action, whereas Bayer India case 1 was barely of inaction, far less in gravity. 10. The afore-narrated words, we think, presently, are enough to assert the singular constitutional role of this Court, and correspondingly of the assisting role of all authorities, civil or judicial, in the territory of India, towards it, who are mandated by the Constitution to act in aid of this Court. That the High Court is one such judicial authority covered under Article 144 of the Constitution is beyond question. The order dated 14-1-1994 of this Court was indeed a judicial order and otherwise enforceable throughout the territory of India under Article 142 of the Constitution. The High Court was bound to come in aid of this Court when it required the High Court to have 1 (1993) 3 SCC 29 its order worked out. The language of request oftenly employed by this Court in such situations is to be read by the High Court as an obligation, in carrying out the constitutional mandate, maintaining the writ of this Court running large throughout the country. 11. Therefore, in these circumstances, we upturn the order of the High Court dated 18-8-1994 and reiterate our request to it to dispose of OSA Nos. 69-73 of 1993 expeditiously, at any rate now within one month from the date of communication of this Order, as this Court awaits the result thereof. Orders be communicated to the High Court forthwith. Copies thereof for information be also sent to the Hon’ble Judges of the Division Bench with our utmost respect. 12. The special leave petitions be listed on 31-1-1995.