In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized that granting interim relief to parties redirected to the High Court is generally improper. The Court reiterated this principle while recalling an earlier order that had provided interim protection from coercive action to a party it had previously asked to approach the High Court.
The initial order, which shielded the party from enforcement actions until the High Court concluded its deliberations, was challenged by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED argued that the order was issued without its input, prompting the Supreme Court to withdraw the protection.
Justices Sanjay Kumar and Aravind Kumar, who presided over the case, clarified that when a matter is referred to the High Court, it is inappropriate to bind that court with directions from the Supreme Court regarding the case. The Court underscored that such instructions could hinder the High Court’s independence in ruling on the merits of the case, possibly skewing the outcome.
The bench drew attention to the Neeharika Infrastructure ruling, which laid down guidelines for handling cases under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It stressed that criminal investigations should not be halted unless absolutely necessary, and courts should avoid disrupting probes into cognizable offenses.
The justices further cautioned that the Supreme Court’s directions could inadvertently be viewed as a commentary on the merits of a case, potentially influencing High Court decisions.
The case at hand involved Gagan Banga and another, with the ED’s successful application leading to the recall of the previous interim order.