Naavi.org

It is reported that the Vacation bench of the Karnataka High Court has on a petition from Axis Bank issued an interim stay on the proceedings of Adjudication until 27th May when the regular bench will hear the petition.

The objective of Axis Bank was to bring an adjudication of a dispute under Information Technology Act 2000/8 to halt.  Since the next hearing of the adjudicator in the disputed case was only on 31st May 2013, the order may not have significance unless the Court does not vacate the stay on 27th.

It must be noted that this “Stay” is not on an operating decision which could have any adverse impact on any party. It is just to stop one wing of the Judiciary from doing its statutory duty.  It is also an open defiance of the State Human Rights Commission which had taken note of the fact that the Adjudication system in Karnataka was dormant for 17 months and had ordered the Adjudicator to start action in respect of the disputed case.

It is possible that the Court was not made aware of proper facts by the petitioner and could have been misled into taking this confrontational attitude with the State Human Rights Commission. If so, it is for the same Court to make amends at the earliest opportunity and also chastise the petitioner for misleading the Court.

It is a tragedy in India that Courts are often used by people to deny justice instead of providing justice. Of course one may argue that one man’s justice is another man’s injustice and hence it is incorrect to criticize the system.

However a decision after due process of law that leads to one person being declared a winner and another a loser is a fair game when the Court does an honest job. But delaying justice through frequent adjournments and by playing one Court against the other is a matter that needs some serious thought by people in the higher echelons of judiciary.

No doubt the initiation of playing one Court against another is always started by an advocate who has a weak case on merits. But the Judiciary needs to ensure that they donot play into the hands of unscrupulous advocates.

One of the frequent victims of such a tendency arises in the system of Cyber Justice since the system is still in the development stage. The “Adjudicators” are often questioned about their jurisdiction and frequently a High Court is brought to the picture only to stay the proceedings of the Adjudicator. By intervening in such matters and granting a stay on the proceedings of the Adjudicator, the High Court often is responsible for the delay in the delivery of justice to the aggrieved.

I recall here a case which was filed in Madras High Court by PNB in July 2011. The Adjudicator of Tamil Nadu was then hearing two cases against Punjab National Bank in which the victims had suffered losses through Cyber Frauds. The PNB’s counsel tried to delay the proceedings as much as possible and when the adjudicator was not willing to play by the wishes of the counsel for adjournment and posted the case for judgement, the counsel went to the vacation judge in Madras High Court and filed a Civil Revision Petition stating that the Adjudicator was not following proper procedure and sought a stay on the proceedings. As it often happens the vacation judge did not apply his mind and granted an interim stay until the case was posted for hearing in the Court after vacation. It took about a month for getting the stay vacated when the Court delivered its view that the Adjudicator may follow the procedure as stated in the rules under ITA 2008. This could have and should have been done by the vacation judge himself but he refused to apply his mind in the interest of justice and went by the petitioner’s plea without verifying the credibility of the petitioner. Though the case was dismissed it gave a critical one month time to the Bank to postpone the decision of the adjudicator.

We are now seeing a repeat of this strategy being used in Bangalore by  Axis Bank seeking and successfully getting an interim stay  on the Adjudication proceedings in one of the cases  until the normal operations of the Court resumes. However since the adjudication proceedings had been in progress and the next hearing was only a few days after the posting of the hearing of this petition in the High Court, unless Axis Bank succeeds to further delay the proceedings on some pretext, there is an opportunity for the Court to review the vacation bench decision  and remove the stay so that the Adjudication system is allowed to function without interference. There is always an opportunity to consider an appeal if the decision of the Adjudicator is not to the liking of the petitioner.

It is regrettable that the Adjudication system in Karnataka which was dormant for the last 17 months and had opened up with the intervention of the State Human Rights Commission is once again sought to be shut up by the Karnataka High Court.

The net effect of this order for grant of interim stay, however routine it may seem to normal Court goers, is not only a blow to the Adjudication system  but also an open confrontation with the State Human Rights Commission.

It is not clear whether the petitioner had disclosed proper facts to the Vacation judge before seeking the remedy such as

– the honourable Judge was being requested for granting of  stay for an adjudication process which had commenced on 15th May 2013 after a lapse of 17 months

-the Adjudicator had re commenced his work based on a direction from the Karnataka Human Rights Commission

The order has therefore simultaneously taken on two different Judicial authorities without consideration of the petition on merits.  The fact that the next hearing of the disputed proceedings with the Adjudicator was only on 31st May 2013 and that there was no urgency for an interim stay was also missed by the Honourable Court probably because the petitioner did not present the correct information.

The hearing which was posted for 27th may 2013 after the vacation for consideration of the petition on merits could very well have also been granted without the grant of the “Interim Stay”. It would have made no difference to the petitioner.

The “Interim Stay” therefore was infructuous and does not serve any genuine purpose. It is however possible that the petitioner may use other stalling tactics when the case comes up for hearing on 27th and seek continuation of the interim stay.

If the interim stay is extended in such a manner that the Adjudicator cannot hold the hearing on 31st May 2013, then the Karnataka High Court would be in confrontation with the State human Rights Commission.

The long term implications of such a development would be interesting for the academicians but a sad development for Cyber Crime victims.

I wish the Chief Justice of Karnataka takes note of such developments and avoids confronting other judicial authorities without appropriate reason.

Naavi