Sukh Deo Narain vs State Of Rajasthan
- SCC(1984) 4 SCC 235
- Neutral1984 INSC 125
- AIRAIR 1984 SC 1571
- SCR[1985] 1 SCR 199
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A petition for transfer under Article 139A(1) of the Constitution must contain a clear statement of the facts of the case and the questions of law involved; a petition that merely asserts that two proceedings raise identical questions without disclosing what those questions are or what the relevant facts are does not meet the requirements for a valid application and will be dismissed. An advocate has a duty to the court and to the client to draft and file petitions with care and proper attention to detail, and not in a casual and careless manner; the filing of inadequately drafted petitions that lack essential information is a breach of this duty and constitutes disrespect to the court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ACT: Supreme Court Rules 1966-Order XXXVI-A-Inserted by G.S.R. 1024 dated 19-8-1978-Application for transfer under Clause (1) of Article 139A of the Constitution-Requirements of valid petition. Practice-Drafting and filing petition in casual and careless manner-Whether proper discharge of duty by advocate to court and client.
HEADNOTE: A petition for withdrawing a writ petition pending in the High Court to the Supreme Court under Article 139A (1) of the Constitution mentioned nothing else except that the writ petition pending in the High Court raised exactly the same questions as those raised in a special leave petition pending in the Supreme Court. What the questions were and what the facts of the cases were was not disclosed. Dismissing the petition, ^ HELD: It is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate; is not discharging his duty either to the court or to the client. [200 C]
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 344 of 1983.
Under article 139A of the Constitution of India for transfer of Writ Petition No. 475 of 1983 pending before the Rajasthan High Court.
D. Bhandari for the Petitioner (Not Present) B. D. Sharma for the Respondent.
The Order of the court was delivered by 200 CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. This petition is totally bereft of any statement of facts. It has been drafted and filed in a most casual and careless manner. All that is stated in the petition is that the Writ Petition pending in the Rajasthan High Court raises exactly the same questions as those raised in SLP (Civil) No. 7561/83 pending in this Court and the writ petition may, therefore, be transferred to this Court. Nothing else is mentioned. No facts relating to either case are mentioned. Even the alleged common questions are not stated. We can only say that it is most discourteous and disrespectful to the highest court in the country to file such indifferent petitions. The advocate is not discharging his duty either to the court or to the client.
Transfer petition is dismissed.
H.S.K. Petition dismissed. 201
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free