KANUBHAI BRAHMBHATTversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

                       KANUBHAIBRAHMBHA1T
A
                                 v.
                         STATE OF GUJARAT

                            FEBRUARY 18, 1987

B                [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32-Writ Petition-Filing
    of-Sometimes reasons good and substantial exist to direct writ peti-
    tioner to approach High Court in First instance-Faith to be inspired in
    the hierarchy of courts.                                                       I


c
                                                                                   ~
           Practice & Procedure, Supreme Court-W"it petition-Filing
    of-Litigant to be directed to approach High Court if good and substan-
    tial reasons exist-Faith to be inspired in the hierarchy of courts.

           In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
D   India, the Court found that good and substantial reasons existed for
    directing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the
    first instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straight-
    away. While directing so, this Court,

          HELD: 1. If Supreme Court takes upon itself to do everything
E   which even the High Court can do, this Court will not be able to do what
    this Court alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and
    other provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There
    is no reason to assume !hall the concerned High Court will not do
    justice. Or that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains
    Writ Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly
F   instead of appraoching the ·concerned High Court in the first instance,
    tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be instituted
    in this Court directly. The inevitable result will be that the arrears
    pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises exclusive
    jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarming pro-
    portions. [3168-D]
G                                                                                      •
        2. It is as important to clo justice at this level, as to inspire confi-
  dence in the litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High
  Court level, and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of
  Courts and the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And
  this objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the
H High Courts by directing the litigants to approach the High Courts in
                                        314
            K. BRAHMBNATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR. J.]               315

     the first instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present
     one are instituted in the High Courts, there is a likelihood of the same A
     being disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account
     of the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. [316E-G I

           ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1986.
                                                                                B
           (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).

           By post.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           THAKKAR, J. Reasons, good and substantial, exist for direct-         C
~    ing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the first
     instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straightaway.
     And these need to be spelled out.

           An illustration may tell more effectively, what otherwise may not D
     be told as effectively, and perhaps, only with some embarrassment.
     Suppose there is only one National Hospital established especially for
     performing open-heart surgery which cannot be performed elsewhere
     in any of the eighteen Regional Hospitals. What will happen to the
     patients needing such surgery, if the National Hospital which alone is
     specially equipped for this type of surgery, throws its doors wide open E
     also for patients suffering from other ailments who can be treated by
     any and every one of the eighteen Regional Hospitals? More parti-
     cularly when the patients already admitted for such surgery by the
     National Hospital are already lying unattended to on its floors, and in
 1   its corridors, for an unconscionably long time? Showing sympathy for
-t   a patient with other than a heart problem who can also be treated F
     equally effectively, and perhaps much more quickly, may well consti-
     tute cruelty to the heart patients who can be treated only by the
     National Hospital established especially and exclusively for the treat-
     ment of such patients. Will it not be more merciful to all concerned (by
     being firm enough) to tell those suffering from other than heart prob-
     lems to go to Regional Hospitals, instead of insisting on being treated G
     at the National Hospital, which also can of course treat them, but only
     at the cost of neglecting the heart patients who have nowhere else to
     go? More so as the patients going to the Regional Hospital may well
     benefit much more by securing more personalized and urgent attention
     thereat. On the other hand. not to do so many well amount to being
     engaged in trying to relieve the distress of those whose distress can be H
    316                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1987] 2 S.C.R.

    removed by any one else at the cost of refusing to treat those who
A
    cannot be treated by any one else.

          If this Court takes upon itself to do everything which even the
    High Courts can do, this Court will not be able to do what this Court
    alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and other
B   provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There is no
    reason to assume that th1~ concerned High Court will not do justice. Or
    that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains Writ
    Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly
    instead of approaching the concerned High Court in the first instance,
    tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be
    instituted in this Court directly.* The inevitable result will be that the
c   arrears pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises
    exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarm-
    ing proportions. As it is, more than ten years old Civil Appeals and
    Criminal Appeals are sobbing for attention. It will occasion great
    misery and immense hardship to tens of thousands of litigants if the
D   seriousness of this aspect is not sufficiently realized. And this is no
    imaginary phobia. A dismissed government servant has to wait for .
    nearly ten years for redress in this Court. 1 A litigant whose appeal has
    been dismissed by wrongly refusing to condone delay has to wait for 14
    years before his wrong is righted by this Court.2 The time for imposing
    self-discipline has already come, even if it involves shedding of some
E   amount of institutional-ego, or raising of some eye-brows. Again, it is
    as important to do justice at this level, as to inspire confidence in the           •
    litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High Court level,
    and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of Courts and
    the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And this
    objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the High
F   Court by directing the litigants to approach the High Court in the first +
    instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present one
    are instituted in the High Court, there is a likelihood of the same being
    disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account of
    the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. We are of
    the opinion that the petitioner should be directed to adopt this course
G   and approach the High Court.

    * More than 9000 are already pending now.
    1. K8shinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others (SCC 1986 Vol. 3 p. 229)

    2. Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar (Civil Appeal No. 1355{N) of 1973 decided on
H      January29, 1987.
           K. BRAHMBNATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR,· J.]              317

          It needs to be clarified that it will be open to the High Court to    A
    call upon the petitioner to present a properly framed Writ Petition
    without obliging him to incur the legal and other incidental expendi-
    ture if the petitioner cannot afford the same. The matter may in such
    an event be assigned to a learned Advocate practising in the High
    Court through the State Legal Aid and Assistance Board, or through
    the High Court Legal Aid Committee which can provide him with the
                                                                                B
    requisite funds to enable him to do the needful. It will also be open to
    the High Court to request the learned District Judge of Vadodara to
    look into the matter from the point of view of the complaints made in
    the letter in question, and make an appropriate report to enable the
    High Court to pass such suitable orders as may be called for in the facts
    and circumstances of the case in order to secure ends of justice.           c
~        These are the reasons which we 'now' articulate in support of the
    order we passed 'then'.

    M.L.A.




                                                           '