# KANUBHAIBRAHMBHA1T v. STATE OF GUJARAT

- **Citation:** [1987] 2 S.C.R. 314
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987-02-18
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1986
- **Bench:** M.P. Thakkar, B.C. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kanubhaibrahmbha1t-v-state-of-gujarat-9471
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32-Writ Petition-Filing
of-Sometimes reasons good and substantial exist to direct writ petitioner to approach High Court in First instance-Faith to be inspired in
the hierarchy of courts.
Practice & Procedure, Supreme Court-W"it petition-Filing
of-Litigant to be directed to approach High Court if good and substantial reasons exist-Faith to be inspired in the hierarchy of courts.
In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
D
India, the Court found that good and substantial reasons existed for
directing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the
first instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straightaway. While directing so, this Court,
HELD: 1. If Supreme Court takes upon itself to do everything
E
which even the High Court can do, this Court will not be able to do what
this Court alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and
other provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There
is no reason to assume !hall the concerned High Court will not do
justice. Or that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains
Writ Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly
F
instead of appraoching the ·concerned High Court in the first instance,
tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be instituted
in this Court directly. The inevitable result will be that the arrears
pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises exclusive
jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarming proportions. [3168-D]
G
2. It is as important to clo justice at this level, as to inspire confidence in the litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High
Court level, and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of
Courts and the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And
this objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the
H High Courts by directing the litigants to approach the High Courts in
314
I
~
•
K. BRAHMBNATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR. J.]
315
the first instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present
one are instituted in the High Courts, there is a likelihood of the same A
being disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account
of the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. [316E-G I
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1986.
B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
By post.

## Text

A
B
c
KANUBHAIBRAHMBHA1T
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT
FEBRUARY 18, 1987
[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32-Writ Petition-Filing
of-Sometimes reasons good and substantial exist to direct writ petitioner to approach High Court in First instance-Faith to be inspired in
the hierarchy of courts.
Practice & Procedure, Supreme Court-W"it petition-Filing
of-Litigant to be directed to approach High Court if good and substantial reasons exist-Faith to be inspired in the hierarchy of courts.
In a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
D
India, the Court found that good and substantial reasons existed for
directing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the
first instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straightaway. While directing so, this Court,
HELD: 1. If Supreme Court takes upon itself to do everything
E
which even the High Court can do, this Court will not be able to do what
this Court alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and
other provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There
is no reason to assume !hall the concerned High Court will not do
justice. Or that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains
Writ Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly
F
instead of appraoching the ·concerned High Court in the first instance,
tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be instituted
in this Court directly. The inevitable result will be that the arrears
pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises exclusive
jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarming proportions. [3168-D]
G
2. It is as important to clo justice at this level, as to inspire confidence in the litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High
Court level, and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of
Courts and the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And
this objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the
H High Courts by directing the litigants to approach the High Courts in
314
I
~
•
K. BRAHMBNATT v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR. J.]
315
the first instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present
one are instituted in the High Courts, there is a likelihood of the same A
being disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account
of the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. [316E-G I
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1986.
B
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
By post.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
THAKKAR, J. Reasons, good and substantial, exist for directC
~ ing the petitioner to approach the concerned High Court in the first
instance instead of knocking at the doors of this Court straightaway.
And these need to be spelled out.
An illustration may tell more effectively, what otherwise may not
be told as effectively, and perhaps, only with some embarrassment.
Suppose there is only one National Hospital established especially for
performing open-heart surgery which cannot be performed elsewhere
in any of the eighteen Regional Hospitals. What will happen to the
patients needing such surgery, if the National Hospital which alone is
specially equipped for this type of surgery, throws its doors wide open
also for patients suffering from other ailments who can be treated by
any and every one of the eighteen Regional Hospitals? More particularly when the patients already admitted for such surgery by the
National Hospital are already lying unattended to on its floors, and in
D
E
1
its corridors, for an unconscionably long time? Showing sympathy for
-t a patient with other than a heart problem who can also be treated
equally effectively, and perhaps much more quickly, may well constitute cruelty to the heart patients who can be treated only by the
National Hospital established especially and exclusively for the treatment of such patients. Will it not be more merciful to all concerned (by
being firm enough) to tell those suffering from other than heart problems to go to Regional Hospitals, instead of insisting on being treated G
at the National Hospital, which also can of course treat them, but only
F
at the cost of neglecting the heart patients who have nowhere else to
go? More so as the patients going to the Regional Hospital may well
benefit much more by securing more personalized and urgent attention
thereat. On the other hand. not to do so many well amount to being
engaged in trying to relieve the distress of those whose distress can be
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 2 S.C.R.
removed by any one else at the cost of refusing to treat those who
cannot be treated by any one else.
If this Court takes upon itself to do everything which even the
High Courts can do, this Court will not be able to do what this Court
alone can do under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, and other
provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on this Court. There is no
reason to assume that th1~ concerned High Court will not do justice. Or
that this Court alone can do justice. If this Court entertains Writ
Petitions at the instance of parties who approach this Court directly
instead of approaching the concerned High Court in the first instance,
tens of thousands of Writ Petitions would in course of time be
instituted in this Court directly.* The inevitable result will be that the
arrears pertaining to matters in respect of which this Court exercises
exclusive jurisdiction under the Constitution will assume more alarming proportions. As it is, more than ten years old Civil Appeals and
Criminal Appeals are sobbing for attention. It will occasion great
misery and immense hardship to tens of thousands of litigants if the
seriousness of this aspect is not sufficiently realized. And this is no
imaginary phobia. A dismissed government servant has to wait for .
nearly ten years for redress in this Court.1 A litigant whose appeal has
been dismissed by wrongly refusing to condone delay has to wait for 14
years before his wrong is righted by this Court.2 The time for imposing
self-discipline has already come, even if it involves shedding of some
amount of institutional-ego, or raising of some eye-brows. Again, it is
as important to do justice at this level, as to inspire confidence in the
litigants that justice will be meted out to them at the High Court level,
and other levels. Faith must be inspired in the hierarchy of Courts and
the institution as a whole. Not only in this Court alone. And this
objective can be achieved only by this Court showing trust in the High
Court by directing the litigants to approach the High Court in the first
instance. Besides, as a matter of fact, if matters like the present one
are instituted in the High Court, there is a likelihood of the same being
disposed of much more quickly, and equally effectively, on account of
the decentralisation of the process of administering justice. We are of
the opinion that the petitioner should be directed to adopt this course
and approach the High Court.
* More than 9000 are already pending now.
1. K8shinath Dikshita v. Union of India and others (SCC 1986 Vol. 3 p. 229)
2. Shankarrao v. Chandrasenkunwar (Civil Appeal No. 1355{N) of 1973 decided on
January29, 1987.
•
+
K. BRAHMBNATI v. STATE OF GUJARAT [THAKKAR,· J.]
317
It needs to be clarified that it will be open to the High Court to
call upon the petitioner to present a properly framed Writ Petition
without obliging him to incur the legal and other incidental expenditure if the petitioner cannot afford the same. The matter may in such
an event be assigned to a learned Advocate practising in the High
Court through the State Legal Aid and Assistance Board, or through
the High Court Legal Aid Committee which can provide him with the
requisite funds to enable him to do the needful. It will also be open to
the High Court to request the learned District Judge of Vadodara to
look into the matter from the point of view of the complaints made in
the letter in question, and make an appropriate report to enable the
High Court to pass such suitable orders as may be called for in the facts
and circumstances of the case in order to secure ends of justice.
~
These are the reasons which we 'now' articulate in support of the
order we passed 'then'.
M.L.A.
'
A
B
c