SDM Constituted Medical Board By Overruling Court Order, Punjab & Haryana HC Says Transgression By Executive Would Demolish Legal System

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has struck down the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) to constitute a fresh medical board overruling the order of a Sessions Court which rejected the application to form the same stating that "any transgression by the executive into the domain of the judiciary would not only undermine the institutional accountability but also has the potential to demolish the functional legal system in place creating complete chaos."

In an attempt to murder case, a two-member Medical Board opined that the victim's head injury was "dangerous to life". An application for re-examination was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, but was dismissed. The case was then committed to the Sessions Court, and charges were framed. Subsequently, a similar application was filedbefore the SDM, despite it having been previously rejected by a competent court.

However, the SDM ordered the constitution of a fresh Medical Board for a second opinion, despite knowing the matter was already under trial. The new board opined after 10 months of the incident that head injury is "grievous in nature, but not dangerous to life."

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "it is painfully apparent that respondents...have acted with malice and without any authority of law, with intent to influence the outcome of the trial pending before learned Sessions Court. It is well settled that actions of the executive, with an oblique or indirect object, will be attributed to 'malice in law'."

The Court added that the SDM has ex facie overstepped his authority and acted beyond the scope of his power by encroaching upon the judicial functions of a Court of competent jurisdiction, during the pendency of a trial.

The bench further said that the conduct exhibited by the SDM reflects a complete disregard for the constitutional scheme. "It is absolutely baffling as to how an Executive officer, so unhesitatingly, overstepped his jurisdiction and inflicted a legal injury with such audacity and an unfathomably blatant disregard for the rule of law and principles of natural justice."

 It opined that SDM has exceeded his jurisdiction by acting upon the ipse dixit of the respondent ho is a complete stranger having no locus standi or cause of action to represent on behalf of the accused in a matter which is sub judice pending trial before Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad.

Justice Brar highlighted that the Court cannot turn Nelson's eye to the unjust intrusion made by the SDM into the judicial functions, for which the powers solely vest in the judiciary being the natural and independent arbiter of the rights of the stakeholders involved in the case. 

"The legislative mandate has established a due procedure of law and provided a structured legal system vesting separate and distinct power of adjudication in judiciary alone. The accountability of the judicial actions is tested under the revisional and appellate jurisdiction," it added.

The Court further said that the executive overreach into the matters under the sole domain of judiciary has far- reaching consequences and if such encroachment upon the authority and functions of the judiciary is ignored, it would create chaos in the process of administration of justice.

It observed that being an executive officer cannot issue any orders usurping the judicial function of the Courts. The Indian Constitution establishes a procedure of law and separation of powers. The judiciary alone is vested with the authority to make judicial decisions by adhering to the established procedural practices.

The plea was filed for taking appropriate steps against the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Badkhal, District Faridabad for interfering in a sub judice matter in an attempt to murder case.

After hearing the submissions, the Court said that, once the legislature has categorically provided that, in administration of criminal justice, the adjudicatory powers would vest solely in the judiciary, any other deviation and intrusion by the executive in the same is prohibited and would be violative of the constitutional scheme. 

"The power to adjudicate upon matters involving criminal law rests with the Courts alone and are subject to fair procedure, which includes four essential components i.e. due notice, opportunity of being heard, impartial and independent forum and orderly procedure," it said.

In the light of the above, the Court held that the SDM as well as the Medical Officers have conducted themselves in a manner, which reeks of mala fide and has aroused significant suspicion and the same deserves to be inquired into.

The Court also asked to implead the Chief, Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Haryana as respondents directed to inquire into the conduct of the CMO and Medical Board within a period of three days.

Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.

Title: Harish Sharma v. State of Haryana and others

Click here to read/download the order