The Supreme Court Thursday advised the High Courts not to make general observations that are not warranted in the case. A bench of Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna said the High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations that are beyond the contours of the controversy involved.
“We advise the High Courts not to make general observations which are not warranted in the case. The High Courts shall refrain from making sweeping observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy and/or issues before them,” the bench said.
The top court was hearing an appeal filed by the Centre against a Delhi high court order.
Bharat Fritz Werner Limited had assailed before the high court, the Letter of Acceptance issued by the Union of India in its favour in respect of the award of the tender.
SC criticises trend of seeking bail under guise of challenging validity of PMLA in money laundering cases
SC dismisses Sukesh Chandrasekhar's plea to be shifted from Mandoli jail to prison outside Delhi
Environmental clearance to Avulapalli reservoir: Andhra Pradesh moves SC against NGT order
2020 Delhi riots case: Court pulls up SI for incomplete investigation, refers matter to police commissioner
The high court had declined to interfere in the proceedings and disposed of the writ petition reserving liberty in favour of the original writ petitioner to raise all its pleas and claim the reliefs available to him at this stage in an appropriate civil proceeding.
It, however, had made certain observations against which the Centre moved the top court for expunging those remarks.
The apex court said that the observations made by the High Court were absolutely unwarranted. “The High Court was not deciding a Public Interest Litigation. The High Court did not even decide the writ petition on merits. On the contrary, in the earlier paragraph, it was observed that it had not gone into the merits of the writ petitioner’s claim or the respondent’s defence,” the bench said.
The top court said that general observations should have been avoided by the High Court and it ought to have restricted itself to the controversy between the parties before it. “Even otherwise, on the basis of a solitary case, general observations could not have been made by the High Court that the Indian bidders are being discriminated against,” the bench said.