'Trust us to be guardians of civil liberties, no case is small for court': CJI DY Chandrachud
On Friday, a bench led by CJI Chandrachud dealt with a plea of a man from Uttar Pradesh called Iqram who was to suffer a jail term of 18 years in nine minor cases of theft of electrical equipment of the state electricity department.
FollowChief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Saturday (December 17) said the confidence of citizens in the due process of law and the protection of liberty rests in the judiciary which is "guardians of liberties".
Delivering a lecture in the Ashok H Desai memorial lecture at the YB Chavan Center Mumbai, the CJI emphasised through the lives of the members of the bar, who fearlessly espouse those causes, "the flame of liberty burns bright even today".
Also read:Â 'Besharam Rang' controversy: Now, Ulemas find Shah Rukh Khan's 'Pathaan' obscene
The CJI referred to a theft case where a man would have spent 18 years in jail had the Supreme Court not intervened to say "trust us to be guardians of the liberties of our citizens".
"So then the consequence was that this person who had stolen electricity equipment like poles would have to suffer 18 years of imprisonment, only because the trial court didn't direct that the sentences would run concurrently," CJI Chandrachud said.
On Friday, a bench led by CJI Chandrachud dealt with a plea of a man from Uttar Pradesh called Iqram who was to suffer a jail term of 18 years in nine minor cases of theft of electrical equipment of the state electricity department.
The top court set aside an Allahabad High Court order and directed that Iqram's jail term of two years each in nine cases would run concurrently instead of successively.
Also read:Â Delhi man throws 2-year-old son from first-floor terrace after fight with wife
It was irked that neither the trial court nor the high court took note of the "miscarriage of justice" and set things right.
Referring to the case, the CJI on Saturday said the high court said, "sorry we can't do anything at all, because the trial judge hasn't, in terms of section 427 of the CrPc directive, said that the sentences would run concurrently."
"We had to intervene yesterday, in a seemingly innocuous case of a simple citizen of the nation. The point which we make is sermonising apart, trust us to be guardians of the liberties of our citizens," he added.
(With input from PTI)
