SANDEEP ALIAS KALAversusSUPREME COURT OF INDIA

468                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   18 S.C.R. 468               [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A                          SANDEEP ALIAS KALA
                                        v.
                        SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                      (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 143 of 2018)
B                              AUGUST 16, 2022
              [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
                        A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
             Supreme Court Rules, 1966 – Or. XXI, r.15–Supreme Court
      (2nd Amendment) Rules,1981 – Supreme Court (Amendment)
C
      Rules,1978 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Or.XX, rr.5(1),21–
      Constitution of India – Article 134(1)(a), (b) – Supreme Court
      (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – s.2(a)–
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.379 – Appeals u/Article
      134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act,
D     modalities to be followed –Acquittal of the petitioner of the charge
      of committing offences punishable u/s.302 r/w s.34, IPC was reversed
      by High Court and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life
      – Conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner attained
      finality following the dismissal of the appeal as well as the review
      petition by Supreme Court – Present petition filed inter alia seeking
E
      a declaration that the deletion of clause (c) & (d) from sub-rule (1)
      of r.15 of Or. XXI of the 1966 Rules was contrary to the law laid
      down by the Constitution Bench inSita Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh
      reported as [1979] 2 SCR 1085– Held: The primary reason for
      deleting the provisions of r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI was that the sub-
F     rule, as it was framed, envisaged that certain categories of appeals
      would be put up for hearing ex parte when it was open to the Court
      to either dismiss summarily or, as the case may be, direct the issuance
      of notice – In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sita
      Ram case that the issuance of a notice must follow, the Full Court
      decided to delete r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI – The 1966 Rules have since
G
      given way to the 2013 Rules –Or.XX thereof contains provisions with
      respect to the procedure for preliminary hearing of certain categories
      of criminal appeals before Supreme Court – r.5(1) of Or. XX indicates
      the categories of appeals which, on being registered, shall be put
      up for hearing ex parte but does not cover appeals falling u/Article
H     134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act –
                                       468
   SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                           469


Hence, and even otherwise as a matter of precept, the principles          A
laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram case must govern
the procedure to be followed while disposing of appeals u/Article
134(1)(a) or (b) or s.2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act –
Ordinarily in all such appeals, notice must be issued – While
disposing of the appeal, it is only appropriate and proper that the
                                                                          B
Court must record reasons– The object and intendment of the
deletion of r.15(1)(c) of Or. XXI of the 1966 Rules was to ensure
that such appeals are not disposed of summarily ex parte without
the issuance of a notice – The deletion must be so construed as to
give effect to the fundamental postulate underlying the judgment of
the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram case–Further, the deletion of a        C
provision in the 2013 Rules akin to r.15(1)(c) of Or.XXI of the 1966
Rules should not be interpreted to confer an uncharted discretion
to dismiss an appeal of that description summarily at an ex parte
hearing without the issuance of a notice – Principles propounded
in Sita Ram continue to hold effect and guide preliminary hearing
                                                                          D
of certain categories of criminal appeals u/Or.XX, including Or.XX,
r.21 of the 2013 Rules – In the present case, the appealfiled by the
petitioner u/s.2(a) of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act r/w s.379,
CrPC was listed before Supreme Court for a preliminary hearing
and was dismissed in limine– The judgment dismissing the appeal
does not evidently furnish reasons – The difficulty in granting any       E
relief to the petitioner in these proceedings is that an appeal having
been dismissed on the judicial side and a review having been since
dismissed against that judgment, it would not be open for this Court
while exercising jurisdiction u/Article 32 of the Constitution to issue
any contrary direction – Petitioner at liberty to pursue the remedies
                                                                          F
available in law – Principles of Natural Justice – Constitution of
India – Article 21.
      Disposing of the petition, the Court
      HELD: 1.1 In Sita Ram, the constitutional validity of Rule
15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules and Section 384 CrPC              G
was called into question. Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for a
majority of three learned Judges of the Constitution Bench,
upheld the validity of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966
Rules and of Section 384 of CrPC “by reading down their scope,
substance and intendement”. After the decision of the
                                                                          H
470            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     Constitution Bench in Sita Ram, the provisions contained in Rule
      15(1)(c) of Order XXI were deleted on 21 May 1981 by the
      Amendment Rules 1981. [Paras 19, 20, 28][481-F-H; 488-G]
             1.2 The primary reason for deleting the provisions of Rule
      15(1)(c) of Order XXI was that the sub-rule, as it was framed,
B     envisaged that certain categories of appeals would be put up for
      hearing ex parte when it was open to the Court to either dismiss
      summarily or, as the case may be, direct the issuance of notice.
      In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench that the issuance
      of a notice must follow, the Full Court decided to delete Rule
      15(1)(c) of Order XXI. The Full Court possibly contemplated that
C     the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram contained
      sufficient guidance in regard to the procedure to be followed in
      the case of appeals arising under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section
      2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. The 1966 Rules have
      since given way to the 2013 Rules which were published in the
D     Gazette of India on 29 May 2014 and came into force on 19 August
      2014. Order XX contains provisions with respect to the procedure
      for preliminary hearing of certain categories of criminal appeals
      before this Court.Rule 5(1) of Order XX indicates the categories
      of appeals which, on being registered, shall be put up for hearing
      ex parte. The category of appeals specified in clauses (a), (b) and
E     (c) does not cover appeals falling under Article 134(1)(a) or (b)
      or Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. Hence and
      even otherwise as a matter of precept, the principles which have
      been laid down by the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram must govern
      the procedure to be followed while disposing of appeals under
F     Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the Enlargement of
      Jurisdiction Act. Ordinarily in all such appeals, notice must be
      issued. The issuance of notice would facilitate a proper
      examination by the Court of the dimensions of the appeal with
      the assistance of both the sides on whether the judgment of the
      High Court, which is the subject matter of the appeal, would
G     warrant further consideration. While disposing of the appeal, it is
      only appropriate and proper that the Court must record reasons.
      The recording of reasons, in a matter where the accused has a
      constitutional or statutory right of appeal against the conviction,
      lends assurance to the judicial process. The liberty of the accused
H
   SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        471


is fundamentally impacted by the outcome of the appeal. The            A
recording of reasons lays confidence to the process that a statutory
appeal which impinges upon the liberty of the accused has been
considered judiciously. The insistence on recording of reasons
emanates from the principles of natural justice and fairness in
decision-making, which serve the precept that justice must not
                                                                       B
only be done, but must also appear to be done. [Paras 33-35][490-
E-H; 491-A, E-H; 492-A-B]
      1.3 The decision of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram has
enunciated the following principles which it would be worthwhile
to recapitulate:(i) An appeal falling within the ambit of Article
134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction       C
Act should ordinarily not be disposed of at a preliminary hearing
without the issuance of notice to the opposite party and calling
for the record;(ii) A hearing should be afforded in presence of
both parties and with records on hand; and (iii) Reasons should
be indicated while disposing of the appeal. [Para 36][492-B-D]         D
      1.4 With the deletion of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the
1966 Rules, appeals falling within the ambit of Article 134(1)(a)
or (b) or under the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act were
specifically taken out of the purview of appeals which would be
put up for ex parte hearing upon registration and which the Court      E
may either dismiss summarily or direct the issuance of notice to
the parties. The object and intendment of the deletion was to
ensure that such appeals are not disposed of summarily ex parte
without the issuance of a notice. The deletion must be so
construed as to give effect to the fundamental postulate
underlying the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram.         F
The deletion of a provision in the 2013 Rules akin to Rule 15(1)(c)
of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules should not be interpreted to
confer an uncharted discretion to dismiss an appeal of that
description summarily at an ex parte hearing without the issuance
of a notice. To the contrary, the deletion of the provision, as the    G
material in the counter affidavit indicates, was in order to fulfil
the mandate of the decision of the Constitution Bench. The
principles propounded in Sita Ram continue to hold effect and
guide preliminary hearing of certain categories of criminal appeals

                                                                       H
472           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     under Order XX, including Order XX, Rule 21 of the 2013 Rules.
      The principle enunciated by the Constitution Bench that reasons
      should be recorded while dismissing appeals falling within the
      ambit of the above provisions has not been introduced by way of
      an amendment to the Rules since it is expected that on the judicial
      side, the Court would follow the principles which have been
B
      enunciated by the Constitution Bench. [Para 37][492-E-H; 493-
      A]
             1.5 In the present case, the acquittal of the petitioner of
      the charge of committing offences punishable under Section 302
      read with Section 34 of the IPC was reversed by the High Court
C     and he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. The appeal,
      under Section 2(a) of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act read
      with Section 379 CrPC, which was filed by the present petitioner
      was listed before this Court for a preliminary hearing on 5 May
      2014 and was dismissed in limine. The judgment of this Court
D     dismissing the appeal does not evidently furnish reasons. The
      difficulty in granting any relief to the petitioner in these
      proceedings is that an appeal having been dismissed on the
      judicial side and a review having been since dismissed against
      that judgment, it would not be open for this Court while exercising
      jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to issue any
E     contrary direction. The petitioner would be at liberty to pursue
      the remedies available in law. The view taken by this Court would,
      it is hoped, set at rest the modalities to be followed while
      entertaining appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2
      of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. [Para 38][493-B-E]
F           Sita Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh (1979) 2 SCC 656 :
            [1979] 2 SCR 1085 – followed.
                            Case Law Reference
      [1979] 2 SCR 1085                followed              Para 7(i)
G           CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition
      (Criminal) No. 143 of 2018.
            (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
             Shivendra Singh, Bikram Dwivedi, Dr. Mukut Nath Verma, Advs.
      for the Petitioner.
H
      SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                            473


     Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Shruti Agarwal,           A
Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Rajat Srivastava, Kartik Dey, Advs. for the
Respondent.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
                                                                              B
       1. In Sessions Case 9 of 2005, four accused were put up for trial,
inter alia, for the commission of offences punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 18601 and Section 25 of
the Arms Act 1959. The criminal case arose out of FIR No 59 dated 15
February 2005 lodged at PS Civil Lines, Sonepat, which was committed
upon the filing of the charge-sheet, for trial to the Sessions Court by an    C
order dated 6 June 2005 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sonepat. The petitioner - Sandeep alias Kala was tried as the second
accused. By a judgment dated 1 September 2006, the Additional Sessions
Judge, Sonepat held that the prosecution had established the guilt of two
of the accused, Arun (A-1) and Sunil (A-3), beyond reasonable doubt           D
and held them guilty of offences under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC. The Additional Sessions Judge, however, acquitted the petitioner
(A-2) and Ravi Kant (A-4). The Additional Sessions Judge made the
following observations while acquitting the petitioner and Ravi Kant:
            “43. Thus, the plea of alibi set up by accused Ravi Kant is       E
                 corroborated by the inquiry conducted by the Deputy
                 Superintendent of police concerned and his subsequent
                 exoneration.
            44.   As regards accused Sandeep, the oral testimony of
                  witnesses produced by the accused in his defence stands     F
                  corroborated by the documentary medical evidence. It can
                  be reasonably held that accused Sandeep remained admitted
                  in the Government Hospital, Mehrauli (Delhi) w.e.f.
                  12.2.2005 to 16.2.2005.
                  Thus, in this manner, the prosecution has failed to bring
                                                                              G
                  home the guilt of these two accused persons namely Ravi
                  Kant and Sandeep by not proving their presence on the
                  date and time at the place of occurrence.”


1
    “IPC”                                                                     H
474            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            2. Besides the appeals which were filed by the co-accused, the
      acquittal of the petitioner was challenged by the State of Haryana in
      CRM No 53-MA of 2007 (O&M). The acquittal of the co-accused Ravi
      Kant was also challenged by the State of Haryana in CRM No 604-MA
      of 2007 (O&M). The appeals against the conviction of two accused as
      well as the appeals against the acquittal of the petitioner and Ravi Kant
B
      were heard and disposed of by a common judgment dated 2 September
      2013 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
      The High Court upheld the conviction of Arun (A-1) and Sunil (A-3),
      while dismissing their appeals.The appeals filed by the State of Haryana
      against the acquittal of the petitioner and Ravi Kant were allowed and
C     both these accused were held guilty of offences punishable under Section
      302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
      life along with a fine of Rs 20,000/- each. The High Court made the
      following observations while examining the plea of alibi by the petitioner
      and Ravi Kant:
D           “Before going through the plea of alibi set up by Ravi Kant and
            Sandeep, the evidence led by them has to be examined. The
            defence had examined Raj Singh whose son is said to have got
            married on 14.02.2005. It is their case that Ravi Kant had attended
            that function. But the testimony is neither convincing nor can be
            relied upon. The accused were unable to show that any such
E           function was held on that da. It is their admitted case that no
            invitation cards were printed nor any video was prepared. Even
            the tent was not set up. The witnesses have come forward only
            because Ravi Kant’s father was Sarpanch of the village. It is
            clear that during the course of inquiry conducted earlier, the name
F           of the Ravi Kant had been dropped because of the influence of
            his father. He was given a clean chit. But subsequently, the DSP
            held an inquiry and submitted a challan against him. The witnesses
            of the defence are not reliable and their evidence is not acceptable
            and hence rejected.
G              In the case of Sandeep, the Medical Officer posted at Mehrauli
            has created documents to show that Sandeep was admitted in the
            primary health centre from 12.02.2005 to 16.02.2005 . All the
            proceedings have been drawn up on plain papers. It is strange
            that no other doctor had attended to Sandeep. Sandeep was
            suffering from gastroenteritis for which admission is not necessary.
H
      SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              475
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

         Only oral tablets had been prescribed. The record shows that           A
         there were two - three other patients with similar complaints but
         they were treated as outdoor patients. No admission was given to
         them. Whereas in the case of Sandeep he was admitted.
         Surprisingly Dr. A.K.Pandey was the only doctor, who attended
         to him in the morning and at night during his so call admission in
                                                                                B
         the govt. hospital. The falsity of the evidence is apparent from the
         record. The documents had been prepared. The father of the
         accused had sent a complaint to the Chief Minister but he did not
         mention in his complaint that in which hospital he was admitted. It
         seems that the record on plain papers was prepared with the
         assistance of Dr. A.K.Pandey to help the accused, which was            C
         intentionally kept back as the inquiry would have revealed the
         falsehood.”
      3. A criminal appeal was instituted before this Court by the co-
accused, Ravi Kant (A-4), whose acquittal, like the petitioner, was
reversed by the High Court. In the appeal filed by Ravi Kant, notice was        D
issued on 4 April 2014. The appeal2 has been dismissed in a detailed
judgment dated 27 March 2019. The court held
         “The prosecution case stands proved in view of the fact that Prem
         Singh (PW-5) and Rakesh Chaudhary (PW-11) are found to be
         reliable and it was a priority for them to first take the injured to   E
         the hospital at Sonepat and thereafter to Jaipur Golden Hospital,
         Rohini and at Rohini itself the statement has been recorded as the
         police had been informed. In the first police statement that has
         been recorded by Sunil Kumar, names of the assailants have been
         mentioned clearly. In fact, Ravi Kant’s role has been clearly
         mentioned. Even if the first information report recorded               F
         subsequently is discarded, no dent is caused in the prosecution
         case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not
         inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of conviction and
         sentence imposed by the High Court.”
       4. The conviction of the petitioner was called into question in          G
Criminal Appeal Diary No 8073 of 2014. The appeal was dismissed by a
three-Judge bench of this Court on 5 May 2014 in terms of the following
order:

2
    Criminal Appeal No 471 of 2014                                              H
476                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            “1.      Delay in filing and refiling the appeal is condoned.
             2.       The Criminal Appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves
                      to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.
                      Ordered accordingly.”
            5. A review petition, being Review Petition (Criminal) No 469 of
B
      2014 in Criminal Appeal No 1135 of 2014 was filed before this Court on
      2 June 2014. The same was dismissed by the three-Judge bench on 21
      August 2014.
             6. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner have
      attained finality following the dismissal of the appeal as well as the review
C     petition.
             7. The petitioner instituted the present Writ Petition under Article
      32 of the Constitutionseeking:
             (i)      a declaration that the deletion of clause (c) and clause (d)
                      from sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of Order XXI of the Supreme
D                     Court Rules 19663 by the Supreme Court (2nd Amendment)
                      Rules 19814 was contrary to the law laid down by a
                      Constitution Bench of this Court in Sita Ram v State of
                      Uttar Pradesh;5
             (ii)     a declaration that in the absence of any guidelines in Order
E                     XX, Rule 21 of the Supreme Court Rules 20136 for the
                      preliminary hearing of appeals under Section 2(a) of the
                      Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate
                      Jurisdiction) Act 1970,7 the provision is unconstitutional as
                      offending the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution;
F                     and
             (iii)    a direction restraining the respondent from giving effect to
                      Order XX, Rule 21 of the 2013 Rules.
             8. The Supreme Court is impleaded as the respondent through the
      Secretary General.A counter affidavit has been filed. Notice was issued
G     on 9 July 2018.

      3
        “1966 Rules”
      4
        “Amendment Rules 1981”
      5
        (1979) 2 SCC 656
      6
        “2013 Rules”
      7
H       “Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act”
      SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              477
          [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

       9. We have heard Mr Shivendra Singh, counsel appearing on behalf         A
of the petitioner and Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, Additional Solicitor General,8
counsel for the respondent.
       10. The submission which has been articulately urged on behalf
of the petitioner by Mr Shivendra Singh is that the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Sita Ram (supra) considered the challenge to the          B
vires of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules in the context of
the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. It has been submitted that while
affirming the validity of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI, Justice Krishna
Iyer, speaking for the majority, held that while the provision is valid, this
does not mean that all appeals falling within its fold should be routinely
                                                                                C
disposed of at the preliminary hearing. According to this Court,if every
appeal under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2(a) of the Enlargement
of Jurisdiction Act were to be set down for preliminary hearing and
summary disposal, the difference between Article 134 and Article 136,
between right and leave, may be obliterated. However, the Constitution
Bench did recognize that in an exceptional category of cases where              D
there is no point at all, an appeal which falls within the purview of either
Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2(a) of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction
Act can be disposed of at the preliminary hearing.In this backdrop, it has
been submitted that the deletion of theprovisions of Rule 15(1)(c) of
Order XXI by the Amendment Rules 1981 is not consistent with the
                                                                                E
judgment in Sita Ram (supra).
       11. On the other hand, Mr Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, submitted
that the deletion of Rule 15(1)(c) and (d) of Order XXI of the 1966
Rules in 1981 does not run a foul of the judgment of the Constitution
Bench in Sita Ram (supra). Mr Banerjee has adverted to the basis of
                                                                                F
the deletion in the amended rules of 1981, as explained in the counter
affidavit. The learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the
Constitution Bench in Sita Ram (supra) recognized that the Court does
possess the power to dismiss an appeal, which is instituted either under
Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction
Act, at a preliminary hearing. It has been submitted that in terms of the       G
decision in Sita Ram (supra), there is a discretion left with this Court to
summarily dismiss a criminal appeal before it on an ex parte basis without
calling for records in certain exceptional circumstances on a case-to-

8
    “ASG”
                                                                                H
478               SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     case basis.The ASG submitted that besides the fact that the appeal and
      the review filed by the petitioner have been dismissed, the appeal by the
      co-accused has been dealt with in a comprehensive judgment dated 27
      March 2019 where the case of the prosecution based on the testimony
      of the eye-witnesses has been upheld while confirming the conviction
      which was recorded by the High Court in the case of the co-accused
B
      (Ravi Kant - A4). Moreover, it was urged that the absence of guidelines
      in Rule 21 of Order XX of the 2013 Rules would not make it
      unconstitutional as the guidelines indicated in Sita Ram (supra) continue
      to hold force.
             12. Article 134 of the Constitution confers appellate jurisdiction
C     on this Court in criminal matters. The provision is in the following terms:
            “134. Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal
                  matters.—
            (1)     An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment,
D                   final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High
                    Court in the territory of India if the High Court
            (a)     has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused
                    person and sentenced him to death; or
            (b)     has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
E                   subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted
                    the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
            (c)     certifies that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme
                    Court:
                    Provided that an appeal under sub-clause (c) shall lie subject
F
                    to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under
                    clause (1) of Article 145 and to such conditions as the High
                    Court may establish or require.
            (2)     Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any
                    further power to entertain and hear appeals from any
G                   judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding
                    of a High Court in the territory of India subject to such
                    conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law.”
            13. Sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 134 provides for an
      appeal to this Court where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an
H
   SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                479
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

order of acquittal of an accused and sentenced him to death. Sub-clause        A
(b) provides for an appeal to this Court where the High Court has
withdrawn for trial before itself any case from a court subordinate to its
authority and in the course of such a trial convicted the accused and
sentenced him to death. Sub-clause (c) deals with a certification by the
High Court that the case is fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. Clause
                                                                               B
(2) of Article 134 empowers Parliament by law to confer on the Supreme
Court any further power to entertain and hear appeals from a judgment,
final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court subject
to such conditions and limitations as may be specified in law.
       14. In exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it by Article 134(2) of
the Constitution, Parliament expanded the jurisdiction of this Court to        C
entertain appeals in criminal cases by enacting the Enlargement of
Jurisdiction Act. Section 2 of the statute provides as follows:
      “2.    Enlarged appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard
             to criminal matters.—Without prejudice to the powers
             conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (1) of Article           D
             134 of the Constitution, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme
             Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal
             proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India if the
             High Court—
      (a)    has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused        E
             person and sentenced him to imprisonment for, life or to
             imprisonment for a period of not less than ten years;
      (b)    has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court
             subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted
             the accused person and sentenced him to imprisonment for          F
             life or to imprisonment for a period of not less than ten
             years.”
       15. By virtue of clause (a) of Section 2 of the Enlargement of
Jurisdiction Act, an appeal lies before this Court where the High Court
has, while reversing the acquittal of an accused, sentenced him to suffer      G
imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a period of at least ten
years. Clause (b) provides for an appeal to this Court where the High
Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any case and in the course of
such a trial either sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for life
or imprisonment for not less than ten years.
                                                                               H
480                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A            16. Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 19739 provides
      for an appeal to this Court where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed
      an order of acquittal of an accused and, while convicting him, sentenced
      him to death or to imprisonment for life or to imprisonment for a term of
      ten years or more. The Joint Select Committee by its report dated 4
      December 1972 suggested the incorporation of provision to bring the
B
      position in line with the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. Section 379 is in
      the following terms:
              “379. Where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an order of
                    acquittal of an accused person and convicted him and
C                   sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life or to
                    imprisonment for a term of ten years or more, he may appeal
                    to the Supreme Court.”
             17. Article 145 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court,
      with the approval of the President, to make Rules regulating its practice
D     and procedure, including various matters which are spelt out thereunder.
      Article 145 provides as follows:
              “145. Rules of Court, etc.—(1) Subject to the provisions of any
              law made by Parliament, the Supreme Court may from time to
              time, with the approval of the President, make rules for regulating
E             generally the practice and procedure of the Court including:
              (a) ***
              (b) rules as to the procedure for hearing appeals and other matters
              pertaining to appeals including the time within which appeals to
F             the Court are to be entered;
              (c) ***
              (d) rules as to the entertainment of appeals under sub-clause (c)
              of clause (1) of Article 134;
G             (e) to (h) ***
              (i) rules providing for the summary determination of any appeal
              which appears to the Court to be frivolous or vexatious or brought
              for the purpose of delay;”
      9
H         “CrPC”
       SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                              481
           [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

      18. The Supreme Court (Amendment) Rules 197810 inserted an                 A
amendment into Rule 15(1)of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules,
1966 on 13 March 1978. Order XXI, Rule 15(1) of the Supreme Court
Rules as amended in 1978 provided as follows:
         “15. (1) The petition of appeal shall be registered and numbered
         as soon as it is lodged. Each of the following categories of appeals,   B
         on being registered, shall be put up for hearing ex parte before the
         Court which may either dismiss it summarily or direct issue of
         notice to all necessary parties, or may make such orders, as the
         circumstances of the case may require, namely:
         (a)    an appeal from any judgment, final order or sentence in a        C
                criminal proceeding of a High Court summarily dismissing
                the appeal or the matter, as the case may be, before it;
         (b)    an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under
                Article 132(1) and/or 134(1)(c) of the Constitution, or under
                any other provision of law if the High Court has not recorded    D
                the reasons or the grounds for granting the certificate;
         (c)    an appeal under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) of clause
                (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution, or under the Supreme
                Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,
                1970 (28 of 1970) or under Section 379 of the Code of            E
                Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);
         (d)    an appeal under Section 476B of the Code of Criminal
                Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898);
         (e)    an appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19
                of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971).”               F
       19. In Sita Ram (supra), the constitutional validity of Rule 15(1)(c)
of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules and Section 384 CrPC was called into
question.
      20. Justice Krishna Iyer, speaking for a majority of three learned
Judges of the Constitution Bench, upheld the validity of Rule 15(1)(c) of        G
Order XXI of the 1966 Rules and of Section 384 of CrPC “by reading
down their scope, substance and intendement”. The Could held that
ordinarily, save where nothing is served by a fuller hearing, “notice must

10
     “Amendment Rules 1978”                                                      H
482            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     go”. The premise of the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court
      is that if every appeal under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) or Section 2(a) of
      the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act were to be set down for preliminary
      hearing and summary disposal, the meaningful difference between Article
      134 and Article 136 may stand eroded and the intent of Parliament would
      be stultified. The Court held that if the punishment which was being
B
      imposed for the first time in the appeal was not a death sentence, there
      can be no constitutional infirmity in the disposal of the appeal at the
      preliminary hearing where the appeal belongs to an exceptional category
      in which “there is no point at all”.
            21. In order to appreciate the ambit of the judgment of the
C     Constitution Bench, it would be necessary to extract the illustrative
      examples which are furnished in paragraph 50 of the judgment, that is,
      when an appeal could be conceivably disposed of at the preliminary
      hearing itself:
            “50. What are those cases where a preliminary hearing is a
D                worthwhile exercise? Without being exhaustive, we may
                 instance some. Where the only ground urged is a point of
                 law which has been squarely covered by a ruling of this
                 Court to keep the appeal lingering longer is survival after
                 death. Where the accused has pleaded guilty of murder
E                and the High Court, on the evidence, is satisfied with the
                 pleas and has awarded the lesser penalty, a mere appeal ex
                 misericordia is an exercise in futility. Where a minor
                 procedural irregularity, clearly curable under the Code, is
                 all that the appellant has to urge, the full panoply of an
                 appellate bearing is an act of supererogation. Where the
F                grounds, taken at their face value, are frivolous, vexatious,
                 malicious, wholly dilatory or blatantly mendacious, the
                 prolongation of an appeal is a premium on abuse of the
                 process of court. Maybe other cases can be conceived of,
                 but we merely illustrate the functional relevance of Order
G                21 Rule 15(1)(c).”
            22. Having said this and observed that the instances which were
      adverted to in paragraph 50 were illustrative and not exhaustive, the
      Court nonetheless held that its decision to uphold Rule 15(1)(c) of Order
      XXI could not be construed as a charter for the disposal of all appeals
H     routinely on a preliminary hearing. This, the Court held, would obliterate
   SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                483
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the difference between Article 134 and Article 136, “between right and         A
leave”. Consequently, the Court held that the rule in cases of appeals
under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) or Section 2(a) of the Enlargement of
Jurisdiction Act was “notice, records and reasons”.The exception would
be a preliminary hearing on all such materials as may be placed by the
appellant and brief grounds for dismissal.
                                                                               B
       23. In paragraphs 53 to 55 of the judgment, the Court has formulated
the principle in the following terms:
      “53. The common embankments applicable to Order 21, Rule
           15(1)(c) and Section 384 of the Code to prevent
           unconstitutional overflow may now be concretised, not as            C
           rigid manacles but as guidelines for safe exercise. We are
           hopeful that the Supreme Court will if found necessary,
           make- clarificatory rules in this behalf.
      54.    To conclude, we uphold the vires of Order 21, Rule 15(1)(c)
             of the Supreme Court Rules and also Section 384 of the            D
             Criminal Procedure Code but hold that in their application
             both the provisions shall be restricted-by certain criteria as
             a permissible exercise in constitutionalisation.
      55.    Order 21 Rule 15(1)(c) in action does not mean that all
             appeals falling within its fold shall be routinely disposed of,   E
             as far as possible, on a preliminary hearing. Such a course,
             as earlier mentioned, obliterates the difference between
             Articles 134 and 136, between right and leave. The rule, in
             cases of appeals under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and Section
             2(a) is notice, records and reasons, but the exception is
             preliminary hearing on all such materials as may be placed        F
             by the appellant and brief grounds for dismissal. This
             exceptional category is where, in all conscience, there is no
             point at all. In cases of real doubt the benefit of doubt goes
             to the appellant and notice goes to the adversary — even if
             the chances of allowance of the appeal be not bright. We          G
             think it proper to suggest that with a view to invest clarity
             and avoid ambiguity. Order 21, Rule 15(1)(c) may be suitably
             modified in conformity with this ruling.”
      24. The Constitution Bench has considered the challenge to Rule
15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966 Rules from the perspective of Article
                                                                               H
484             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     21. Procedure established by law, it is well-settled, must be fair, just and
      reasonable. The Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act was enacted by
      Parliament in pursuance of the power conferred by clause (2) of Article
      134 of the Constitution. The object of Parliament in enacting the law
      was, inter alia, that where the High Court has, on appeal, reversed an
      acquittal and sentenced the accused to a sentence of imprisonment of
B
      life or to imprisonment for not less than ten years, a right of appeal
      should be made available to the Supreme Court. A parity of principle
      applies where the High Court has withdrawn for trial before itself any
      case pending before a court subordinate to its authority and sentenced
      the accused to either imprisonment for life or to a term of not less than
C     ten years. There is a doctrinal parity between the conferment of a right
      to appeal by Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and Sections 2(a) and (b) of the
      Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, save and except for the fact that the
      former deals with a case where the High Court has imposed a sentence
      of death, while, the latter deals with a situation where the High Court
      has, while reversing an order of acquittal, imposed a sentence of either
D
      imprisonment for life or for a term of not less than ten years.
             25. Article 136 of the Constitution deals with the power of this
      Court to grant special leave to appeal. The Constitution Bench in Sita
      Ram (supra) has noted the distinction between the right of appeal which
      is provided by Article 134, on the one hand, and Section 2 of the
E     Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, on the other, while distinguishing this,
      from the special leave provisions which are embodied in Article 136.
      The Constitution Bench has cautioned that if all appeals were to be
      heard and disposed of routinely on a preliminary hearing, the distinction
      between the right of appeal and the grant of leave would stand obliterated
F     contrary to the intent of Constitution makers and of Parliament, while
      formulating the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. It is from this perspective
      that in Sita Ram (supra), the Constitution Bench has observed that the
      rule in cases which are governed by Article 134(1)(a) and (b) or Section
      2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act is “notice, records and reasons”.
      The dismissal of an appeal at a preliminary hearing is by way of an
G     exception. The exceptional situations which the Court contemplated,
      without being exhaustive, have been elucidated in paragraph 50 of the
      judgment of the Constitution Bench.
            26. The judgment of the Constitution Bench lays down the
      invariable principle that where the Constitution, on the one hand, as in
H
    SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                 485
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the case of Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and Parliament, on the other hand,         A
as in the case of Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act, confer
a right of appeal, a meaningful substantive content must be imported to
the conferment of that right of the accused. The Court, as the Constitution
Bench held, may undoubtedly have the power to dispose of the appeal at
a preliminary hearing, but, this again is in the nature of an exception. It is
                                                                                 B
in the nature of an exception because the conferment of a right of an
appealis intended to facilitate and protect the right under Article 21 of
the Constitution. The Constitution Bench emphasized that the right of
appeal under Article 134 is “a part of the procedure established by law
for the protection of life and personal liberty”. Consequently, not only
would a notice have to be issued, but the Court would be well advised to         C
go through the record and indicate reasons for its decision. In paragraphs
28 to 31 of the judgment, the Court observed that the right of appeal in
criminal cases is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution and that
no provision, that renders this right illusory, can interfere with the mandate
of Article 21:                                                                   D
    “28. It is just as well that we remind ourselves of a value-setter
         here. Life and liberty have been the cynosure of special
         constitutional attention in Article 21, the fuller implications
         whereof have been unravelled in Maneka Gandhi case. When
         we read the signification of the right of appeal under Article
                                                                                 E
         134 we must remember that it is a part of the procedure
         established by law for the protection of life and personal liberty.
         Surely, law, in this setting, is a pregnant expression. Bhagwati,
         J., in Maneka Gandhi stated the position emphatically and since
         then this Court has followed that prescription and even
         developed it in humane directions, a striking example of which          F
         is the recent judgment in Presidential Reference No. 1 of 1978.
         “Is the prescription of some sort of procedure enough or must
         the procedure comply with any particular requirements?” asks
         Bhagwati, J., (SCC p. 281, para 5) in the leading opinion, and
         answers: (SCC p. 281, para 5 and p. 284, para 7)                        G
              “Obviously, the procedure cannot be arbitrary, unfair or
              unreasonable.... The principle of reasonableness, which
              legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of
              equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a
              brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by
                                                                                 H
486   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A       Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order
        to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be ‘right and
        just and fair’ and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive;
        otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the
        requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied.
B     Holding that natural justice was part of Indian Constitutional
      jurisprudence the learned Judge quoted Lord Morris of
      Borthy—Gest in Wiseman v. Borneman [1971 AC 297 : (1961)
      3 All ER 275] :
        “... that the conception of natural justice should at all stages
C       guide those who discharge judicial functions is not merely
        an acceptable but is an essential part of the philosophy of
        the law.”
      Bhagwati, J., brought out the essence of the concept of natural
      justice as part of reasonable procedure when he observed:
D     (SCC p. 291)
        “The core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the
        person affected must have a reasonable opportunity of being
        heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not
        an empty public relations exercise. That is why Tucker, L.J.,
E       emphasised in Russel v. Duke of Norfolk [(1949) 1 All ER
        109] that ‘whatever standard of natural justice is adopted,
        one essential is that the person concerned should have a
        reasonable opportunity of presenting his case’. What
        opportunity may be regarded as reasonable would
        necessarily depend on the practical necessities of the
F       situation. It may be a sophisticated full-fledged hearing or it
        may be a hearing which is very brief and minimal.”
      One of us (Krishna Iyer, J.) emphasised the fundamental
      fairness required by Article 21 in every law that abridges life
      or liberty: (SCC p. 337, para 81)
G
        ‘Procedure established by law’, with its lethal potentiality,
        will reduce life and liberty to a precarious plaything if we
        do not ex necessitate import into those weighty words an
        adjectival rule of law, civilised in its soul, fair in its heart and
        fixing those imperatives of procedural protection absent
H       which the processual tail will wag the substantive head....
SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                             487
    [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

        An enacted apparition is a constitutional illusion. Processual   A
        justice is writ patently on Article 21.”
29.   We have set out the sweep of Article 21 because the
      rule framed by this Court, namely. Order 21, Rule
      15(1)(c), cannot transcend this obligation, nor indeed
      can Section 384 of the Code. On the contrary, as Bhagwati,         B
      J., has observed in Maneka Gandhi case (SCC p. 314):
        “It is a basic constitutional assumption underlying every
        statutory grant of power that the authority on which the
        power is conferred should act constitutionally and not in
        violation of any fundamental rights.”                            C
30.   We have made these general remarks to set the interpretative
      tone when translating the sense of the expression “appeal shall
      lie to the Supreme Court”. Nothing which will render this
      right illusory or its fortune chancy can square with the
      mandate of Article 21.What applies to the right of appeal          D
      under Section 2(a) of the Enlargement Act must apply
      to an appeal under Article 134(1)(a) and (b) and,
      therefore, it is wiser to be assumed of what comports
      with reasonableness and fairplay in cases covered by
      the latter category.
                                                                         E
31.   When an accused is acquitted by the trial court, the initial
      presumption of innocence in his favour is reinforced by the
      factum of acquittal. If this reinforced innocence is not only
      reversed in appeal but the extreme penalty of death is imposed
      on him by the High Court, it stands to reason that it requires
      thorough examination by the Supreme Court. A similar               F
      reasoning applies to cases falling under Article 134(1)(b). When
      the High Court trying a case sentences a man to death a higher
      court must examine the merits to satisfy that a human life
      shall not be haltered without an appellate review. The next
      step is whether a hearing that is to be extended or the review     G
      that has to be made by the Supreme Court in such
      circumstances can be narrowed down to a consideration, in a
      summary fashion, of the necessarily limited record then
      available before the Court and total dismissal of the appeal if
      on such a prima facie examination nothing flawsome is brought
                                                                         H
488            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A               out by the appellant to the satisfaction of the Court. A single
                right of appeal is more or less a universal requirement
                of the guarantee of life and liberty rooted in the
                conception that men are fallible, that Judges are men
                and that making assurance doubly sure, before
                irrevocable deprivation of life or liberty comes to pass,
B
                a full-scale re-examination of the facts and the law is
                made an integral part of fundamental fairness or
                procedure.”
                                                        (emphasis supplied)
C            27. Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of Rules 1966, inter alia, provided
      that an appeal under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or under the Enlargement
      of Jurisdiction Act or Section 379 of CrPC could be placed for ex parte
      hearing before the Court and which the Court may either dismiss
      summarily or direct the issuance of notice to all necessary parties. The
      Rule also contemplated that the Court may make such orders as the
D
      circumstances of the case may require. The decision of the Constitution
      Bench regarded a summary dismissal without the issuance of notice as
      an exception, the ordinary rule being ‘notice, record and reasons’. The
      Constitution Bench, after having laid down the principles of law, observed
      that in order to invest clarity and to avoid ambiguity, Order XXI, Rule
E     15(1)(c) may be suitably modified in conformity with the judgement.
      The purpose of the Constitution Bench in doing so was to bring greater
      clarity to the provisions of Rule 15(1)(c) by ensuring that the power
      which would confer was duly channelized in conformity with the principles
      embodied in Article 21. In fact, that is the perspective from which the
      Court observed that it was hopeful that the Supreme Court would, if
F
      found necessary, make clarificatory rules in this behalf and that Order
      XXI, Rule 15(1)(c) may be suitably modified in conformity with the ruling.
      The clarity which it sought in the provisions of the rule was in order to
      streamline the power of a summary dismissal without the issuance of a
      notice.
G
            28. After the decision of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram
      (supra), the provisions contained in Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI were
      deleted on 21 May 1981 by the Amendment Rules 1981.
            29. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed in these
      proceedings by the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court, the basis
H
    SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                 489
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

for the deletion has been sought to be explained. A note was put up by           A
the then Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court on 22 June 1979
submitting that the decision in Sita Ram (supra) basically enunciated
three criteria:
          “(i)    Ordinarily the records shall be sent for and are available.
                  Counsel’s assistance apart, the Court itself must apply its    B
                  mind. (Page 21)
          (ii)    The appeal shall not be dismissed summarily or after a mere
                  preliminary hearing even with the records on hand but only
                  after notice and debate at the Bar. (Page 21)
          (iii)   The reasons for decision be given. (Page 23)”                  C

          30. Having set out the above criteria, the note of the Registrar
states:
          “The above three criteria taken as a whole, could only mean that
          an appeal can be listed for so-called preliminary hearing only after   D
          the records are called for and the respondent is given notice there
          of which amounts to final hearing and not a preliminary hearing,
          which is usually ex parte on the papers filed by the appellant.
          Since the rule has been held to be intra vires, the appeals under
          Article 134(1)(a) & (b) may be listed for preliminary hearing as
          they are being done now but the Judges hearing the matter may          E
          apply the above criteria and call for the records and order notice
          to the Respondent and pass suitable orders after perusing the
          records and hearing the respondent. If the appeal is admitted, the
          paper-book of the appeal will be prepared subsequently.”
       31. Following the above note of the Registrar (Judicial), a               F
Committee of three Judges was set up by the then Chief Justice of India
to consider the matter and examine whether the amendments proposed
by the office were in order. The minutes of the meeting of the Committee
of Judges recorded the following view:
          “A meeting of the Committee consisting of the Hon’ble Mr. Justice      G
          V.D. Tulzapurkar, Hon’bleMr. Justice D.A. Desai and the Hon’ble
          Mr. Justice E.S. Venkataramiah, was held in the Chamber of the
          Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar on Wednesday the 25th
          July 1979 at 1:30 P.M. in order to consider the amendments to the
          Supreme Court Rules suggested in the note of the Registrar dated
                                                                                 H
490            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A           22.06.1979, pursuant to the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act,
            1978, etc. The Committee unanimously recommended that the
            proposed amendments to the Rules should not be made. It was
            further of the opinion that the Full Court should consider the
            question whether the majority view in Sita Ram’s case (Criminal
            Appeal No.264 of 1978 decided on 24.01.1978) should be reflected
B
            in the Rules by adding the following proviso to clause (c) of rule
            15(1) of Order XXI of the Supreme Court Rules:-
            “Provided that before summarily dismissing such appeal, the
            records of the case shall be called for and the appellant be heard.”
C           32. Following the report of the Committee, the amendment was
      placed before a meeting of the Full Court on 6 August 1979, when the
      following decision was recorded:
            “As regards clause (c) of rule 15(1), which provides for the ex
            parte hearing of an appeal under sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b)
D           of clause (1) of Art.134 of the Constitution or under the Supreme
            Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970
            (28 of 1970) or under section 379 of the Code of Criminal
            Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), after discussion, it was decided that
            the aforesaid clause shall be deleted.”

E            33. From the above narration, what emerges is that the primary
      reason for deleting the provisions of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI was
      that the sub-rule, as it was framed, envisaged that certain categories of
      appeals would be put up for hearing ex parte when it was open to the
      Court to either dismiss summarily or, as the case may be, direct the
      issuance of notice. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench
F     that the issuance of a notice must follow, the Full Court decided to delete
      Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI (we are not concerned in these proceedings
      with the other amendments which were made). The Full Court possibly
      contemplated that the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram
      (supra) contained sufficient guidance in regard to the procedure to be
G     followed in the case of appeals arising under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or
      Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act.
             34. The 1966 Rules have since given way to the 2013 Rules which
      were published in the Gazette of India on 29 May 2014 and came into
      force on 19 August 2014. Order XX contains provisions with respect to
      the procedure for preliminary hearing of certain categories of criminal
H
   SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                               491
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

appeals before this Court. Rule 5(1) of Order XX contains the following       A
provision:
      “5.(1) The petition of appeal shall be registered and numbered as
      soon as it is found to be in order. Each of the following categories
      of appeals, on being registered, shall be put for hearing ex parte
      before the Court, which may either dismiss it summarily or direct       B
      issue of notice to all necessary parties, or may make such orders,
      as the circumstances of the case may require, namely:
      (a) an appeal from any judgment, final order or sentence in a
      criminal proceeding of a High Court summarily dismissing the
      appeal or the matter, as the case may be, before it;                    C
      (b) an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court under
      Article 134-A of the Constitution being a certificate of the nature
      referred to in clause (1) of Article 132 or sub-clause (c) of clause
      (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution or under any other provision
      of law if the High Court has not recorded the reasons or the            D
      grounds for granting the certificate;
      (c) an appeal under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 of
      the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971).”
       35. Rule 5(1) of Order XX indicates the categories of appeals
which, on being registered, shall be put up for hearing ex parte. The         E
category of appeals specified in clauses (a), (b) and (c) does not cover
appeals falling under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of the
Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act.Hence and even otherwise as a matter
of precept, the principles which have been laid down by the Constitution
Bench in Sita Ram (supra) must govern the procedure to be followed            F
while disposing of appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of
the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. Ordinarily in all such appeals, notice
must be issued. The issuance of notice would facilitate a proper
examination by the Court of the dimensions of the appeal with the
assistance of both the sides on whether the judgment of the High Court,
which is the subject matter of the appeal, would warrant further              G
consideration. While disposing of the appeal, it is only appropriate and
proper that the Court must record reasons.The recording of reasons, in
a matter where the accused has a constitutional or statutory right of
appeal against the conviction, lends assurance to the judicial process.
The liberty of the accused is fundamentally impacted by the outcome of
                                                                              H
492                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 18 S.C.R.


A     the appeal. The recording of reasons lays confidence to the process that
      a statutory appeal which impinges upon the liberty of the accused has
      been considered judiciously. Our insistence on recording of reasons
      emanates from the principles of natural justice and fairness in decision-
      making, which serve the precept that justice must not only be done, but
      must also appear to be done.
B
             36. The decision of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram (supra)
      has enunciated the following principles which it would be worthwhile to
      recapitulate:
            (i)      An appeal falling within the ambit of Article 134(1)(a) or
C                    (b) or Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act should
                     ordinarily not be disposed of at a preliminary hearing without
                     the issuance of notice to the opposite party and calling for
                     the record;
            (ii)     A hearing should be afforded in presence of both parties
D                    and with records on hand; and
            (iii)    Reasons should be indicated while disposing of the appeal.
             37. With the deletion of Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of the 1966
      Rules, appeals falling within the ambit of Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or
      under the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act were specifically taken out of
E     the purview of appeals which would be put up for ex parte hearing upon
      registration and which the Court may either dismiss summarily or direct
      the issuance of notice to the parties. The object and intendment of the
      deletion was to ensure that such appeals are not disposed of summarily
      ex parte without the issuance of a notice. The deletion must be so
F     construed as to give effect to the fundamental postulate underlying the
      judgment of the Constitution Bench in Sita Ram (supra). The deletion
      of a provision in the 2013 Rules akin to Rule 15(1)(c) of Order XXI of
      the 1966 Rules should not be interpreted to confer an uncharted discretion
      to dismiss an appeal of that description summarily at an ex parte hearing
      without the issuance of a notice. To the contrary, the deletion of the
G     provision, as the material in the counter affidavit indicates, was in order
      to fulfil the mandate of the decision of the Constitution Bench.The
      principles propounded in Sita Ram (supra) continue to hold effect and
      guide preliminary hearing of certain categories of criminal appeals under
      Order XX, including Order XX, Rule 21 of the 2013 Rules.The principle
      enunciated by the Constitution Bench that reasons should be recorded
H
    SANDEEP ALIAS KALA v. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                                   493
        [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

while dismissing appeals falling within the ambit of the above provisions          A
has not been introduced by way of an amendment to the Rules since it is
expected that on the judicial side, the Court would follow the principles
which have been enunciated by the Constitution Bench.
        38. In the present case, the acquittal of the petitioner of the charge
of committing offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section              B
34 of the IPC was reversed by the High Court and he was sentenced to
suffer imprisonment for life. The appeal, under Section 2(a) of the
Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act read with Section 379 CrPC, which
was filed by the present petitioner was listed before this Court for a
preliminary hearing on 5 May 2014 and was dismissed in limine. The
                                                                                   C
judgment of this Court dismissing the appeal does not evidently furnish
reasons. The difficulty in granting any relief to the petitioner in these
proceedings is that an appeal having been dismissed on the judicial side
and a review having been since dismissed against that judgment, it would
not be open for this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32
of the Constitution to issue any contrary direction. The petitioner would          D
be at liberty to pursue the remedies available in law. The view which we
have taken would, it is hoped, set at rest the modalities to be followed
while entertaining appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) or Section 2 of
the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act. Before concluding, we may note
that we have not made any specific finding in regard to the consequence
                                                                                   E
of the dismissal of the appeal by the co-accused (A4) by a reasoned
judgment dated 27 March 2019 on the remedies available to the petitioner
in law.
       39. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
       40. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.                        F


Divya Pandey                                               Petition disposed of.
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)


                                                                                   G




                                                                                   H