Patna High Court Questions DB's Competence To Take Up Suo Motu Case Over 'Assault' On Lawyers Sans Roster; Seeks Probe Update

For context, the matter, which was registered as a criminal writ suo motu case on the orders of a division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey on September 9, came up today before a bench of Acting Chief Justice PB Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha.

At the outset, the Acting Chief Justice observed: "We want parties to address us on whether Division Bench-3 could entertain the motion/urgency application related to this matter when it has no roster on this subject".

The Court pointed out that while the matter may be mentioned by the parties before a particular bench, the key issue was whether a division bench without the roster on the related subject could take judicial notice of it and entertain it.

Appearing for the state government, the Advocate General told the Court he was surprised that the matter was even mentioned yesterday. He informed the court that at 1:30 PM on September 9, the lawyers, including the alleged victim, had met him and that he had immediately spoken to the Senior Superintendent of Police.

He submitted that the investigation of such offences lies with the police, and if aggrieved, the complainant has remedies before the magistrate (file a protest plea, etc). "Writ jurisdiction can't be invoked to seek a probe in a particular manner", he said.

The bench also clarified its own limits in such cases, as the Acting Chief Justice orally observed thus:

"Even we don't have the power to direct police to arrest the accused and we are not going to give any such direction".

At this moment, the counsel pressing for action in the matter submitted that no FIR had been lodged until 3:30 PM yesterday, and since the lady advocate had also been abused, it was thought proper to bring the matter to the Court's notice. He added that his only prayer was to ensure a fair investigation.

The Court, however, questioned him as to how it was being speculated that a proper investigation would not be conducted. The bench then observed that the authorities must be given breathing time to take action.

Against this backdrop, the Court, refusing to issue any substantive direction, noted that the grievance was not 'crystal clear', as there was no formal application stating the precise grievance of the senior counsel.

Therefore, the Court directed that counsels must first address two issues on the next date:

1. Whether Division Bench-3, with its given roster, could have taken suo motu judicial notice on oral submissions of senior counsel and sought the Acting Chief Justice's approval on the administrative side; and
2. What relief is being sought in the matter?

The bench further directed that an update on the steps taken by the Investigating Officer be placed before it on the next hearing date. The matter has been adjourned for a week.