Source: Bombay High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Ajay Gadkari and Rajesh Patil  directs DGP to clarify on oath whether Parliamentary laws and DGP circulars are binding on Maharashtra Police, warning of action for CrPC violations. 

• The Bombay High Court held this in the matter of  Sorabh Kamal Jain v. State of Maharashtra,(2025). 

What was the Background of Sorabh Kamal Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (2025) Case? 

• A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 3rd June 2024 for an economic offence. 
• The investigation has been ongoing for more than 13 months from the date of registration. 
• The investigating officer assigned to the case holds the rank of Assistant Police Inspector at the local police station. 
• The case involves economic offences which typically require thorough and systematic investigation of procedures. 
• The basic investigative procedure of drawing panchnama of the scene of offence has not been completed despite the passage of 13 months. 
• The case diary maintenance has been found to be irregular and non-compliant with statutory requirements. 
• The investigation appears to be proceeding at a slow pace with fundamental investigative steps remaining incomplete. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court expressed astonishment at the submission that despite the crime being registered on 3rd June 2024, more than 13 months ago, the basic tenet of investigation, namely drawing of panchnama of scene of offence, has not been carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer till date. 
• The Court noted that less said is better about the remaining part of the investigation of an offence of this nature, being an economic offence, which is being conducted by an officer of the rank of Assistant Police Inspector. 
• Upon personal perusal of the case diary, the Court found that it was maintained in a casual manner with loose leaves in a yellow colour plastic file. 
• The first page of the case diary bore no number and date, and was typed on ledger paper. 
• Case diary entries No.1 to 13 were found to be loose sheets, indicating clear violation of the mandate of law under Section 172(1-B) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
• The Court observed that the concerned Investigating Officer has clearly violated the mandate of law under Section 172(1-B) of the Criminal Procedure Code, coupled with various Circulars and directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State. 
• The Court noted that the office of the Director General of Police has issued Circulars dated 6th December 2018, 16th September 2021, and 12th February 2024, repeatedly directing all police personnel in Maharashtra to maintain case diary as per Section 172 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 
• The Court observed that all police personnel in the State of Maharashtra must follow the mandate of law as per the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police. 
• The Court noted that directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police are not percolated to the lower rank of police personnel, who are blatantly violating the directions issued by the topmost Authority of the Police Department. 
• The Court remarked that this situation is unconscionable and unpardonable, noting that in a disciplined police force, the police personnel themselves are not following discipline and are not following mandatory directions issued by the office of the Director General of Police. 
• The Court directed the Director General of Police to explain on oath whether the provisions of law enacted by the Parliament of India are binding and mandatory on police personnel in the State of Maharashtra, or whether those are to be retained only in the books of law. 
• The Court sought clarification on whether Circulars and directions issued by the office of Director General of Police, Maharashtra State are binding on all police force. 
• The Court reserved its right to take necessary action against the Investigating Officer concerned for breach of the provisions of law if deemed necessary and required, after perusing the Affidavit of the Director General of Police. 

What is the Parliamentary Legislative Authority? 

• The Parliament of India is the supreme legislative authority in the country and possesses the constitutional power to enact laws on subjects within its legislative competence. 
• Parliament has the authority to destroy the effects of precedents established by the Supreme Court by passing statutory laws that override judicial decisions. 
• Legislation enacted by Parliament can abrogate judicial precedents either impliedly or expressly through statutory provisions. 
• When Parliament enacts a law that is inconsistent with an existing judicial precedent, the statutory provision impliedly overrides the precedent without expressly stating so. 
• Parliament can expressly abrogate a judicial precedent by specifically mentioning in the statutory provision that the particular precedent or judicial decision shall not apply or is being overruled. 

What are Constitutional Frameworks? 

Legislative Response to Judicial Decisions: 

• Under the Indian constitutional system, while the judiciary interprets the law, Parliament retains the ultimate authority to make laws and can override judicial interpretations through legislation. 
• Judicial precedents, though binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, are subject to legislative override when Parliament exercises its constitutional power to enact laws. 
• When Parliament enacts a statute that conflicts with a judicial precedent, the statutory provision takes precedence over the judicial decision. 

Legislative Response to Judicial Decisions: 

• Parliament can respond to judicial decisions by enacting specific legislation that addresses the issues raised in court judgments. 

Clarification of Legal Position: 

• Through statutory enactments, Parliament can clarify the legal position on matters where judicial precedents may have created uncertainty or where legislative intent differs from judicial interpretation. 

Retroactive Effect: 

• Parliament can enact laws with retroactive effect to nullify the impact of judicial precedents, subject to constitutional limitations. 

Separation of Powers: 

• While the judiciary has the power to interpret laws and create binding precedents, Parliament maintains the constitutional authority to enact laws that can override such precedents. 

Democratic Legitimacy: 

• Parliamentary laws derive their authority from democratic mandate and constitutional provisions, enabling them to supersede judicial precedents when enacted within constitutional bounds. 

Constitutional Supremacy: 

• Both parliamentary legislation and judicial precedents operate within the framework of the Constitution, with Parliament's legislative power being subject to constitutional limitations and judicial review.