Read Time: 05 minutes

The Supreme Court on Monday requested the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court to conduct an enquiry on the administrative side into the grievance of a woman who after being acquitted in 2013, came to know that her appeal was listed for fresh hearing before another Judge of the High Court again in 2018.

P Nallamal and her husband were convicted in November 2000, by the IIIrd Special Judge/ XIIIth Additional Judge at Chennai for an offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

An appeal was then filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which was heard by a Single Judge of the High Court on diverse dates between 8 February 2013 and 20 February 2013 and was reserved for judgment.

According to the petitioner, the appeal was listed for pronouncement of judgment on April 30 2013, when the same was allowed and the petitioner and her husband were acquitted.

The Court was further told that when an application was made seeking a certified copy of the judgment, the same was not made available.

On July 19, 2018, the appeal was allegedly listed for fresh hearing before another judge of the High Court.

Hence, the aggrieved petitioner moved the top court under Article 32 with the grievance that the listing of the appeal for “fresh hearing” would be violative of her rights under Articles 14, 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution and relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

While disposing of the petition, a bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna held that the appropriate course of action would be to request the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Madras to conduct an enquiry on the administrative side into the grievance of the petitioner.

"The Chief Justice is requested to conduct an enquiry into the grievance of the petitioner. The Chief Justice would be at liberty to take necessary assistance in order to ascertain the factual position and may thereafter take an appropriate decision on the grievance which has been addressed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is thereafter aggrieved on the decision taken on the administrative side, we keep open all the rights and contentions of the petitioner to pursue her remedies in accordance with law...", ordered the bench.

Cause Title: P. Nallammal vs The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras & Anr.