MAMBRAM VALIYATTU KAMMU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this bunch of habeas corpus petitions, the detention orders are passed by the Kerala Government and the petitioners are in Kerala jails. We are of the considered opinion that these petitions ought to have been filed on the Kerala High Court.

(2.) It is noted for a long time in this Court that writ petitions involving detention orders passed by various State Governments are filed in this Court, adding to the already heavy burden of cases in this Court. From time to time other varieties of writ petitions are filed in bunch in this Court although the petitioners could have got the same relief in different High Courts in India. A few years back large number of writ petitions involving excise duty were filed in this Court, which could have been filed in different High Courts in India. In those cases interim reliefs were granted by this Court on furnishing bank guarantee. We do not want to create an impression on the litigant public that they can easily get a relief in this Court, which perhaps they may not get in other High Courts in India. Particularly, in habeas corpus writ petitions, where we have great anxiety to dispose of the petitions early, it is not possible to do so since the notices of longer duration are required to be issued to State Governments. After the notices are received they engage a lawyer, who appears in this 'Court and seeks time to file the counter-affidavit. For preparation of counter-affidavit the officers of the State Government and the record is required to be brought to Delhi or the lawyer goes to the State capital. This results into loss of time in movement of officials and files. We have seen that sometimes it takes even four to five months for the hearing of habeas corpus writ petition after notice, for deciding whether rule nisi should be issued or not.

(3.) As of October 1990 the total pendency of cases in this Court is 1,21,639. Starting " from 1977, there are about 1960 criminal appeals and 1128 criminal 'revisions pending. There are large number of cases where the accused has not been able to furnish bail or the bail has been refused to him and that he is languishing in jail for number of .years. The position inother jurisdictions is also equally alarming. Starting from 1977 the pendency of IT Rs is 5052, WT Rs 2420, civil writ petitions (starting from 1973) 14,080 and civil suits (starting from 1970) over 12,000. In the preventive detention area itself about 200 habeas corpus petitions were filed in 1990, out of which 38 are pending at the stage of issue of rule nisi and 40 are pending for disposal after issue of rule nisi. There are 10 vacancies of the Judges not filled for over one year.