Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done

Facts of the Case

The case involves Bharti Arora, a Superintendent of Police (SP) in Kurukshetra, who was issued a show-cause notice under Section 58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. This was based on allegations of vexatious conduct and a purported attempt to exonerate Ran Singh, from whom a commercial quantity of opium had been seized. The trial court convicted Ran Singh but acquitted three others, alleging they had been falsely implicated by senior police officers, including the appellant. Adverse findings against Bharti Arora were made without providing her an opportunity to be heard.

Contentions of the Appellant

The appellant argued that:

1. She was not involved in the raid, investigation, or filing of the chargesheet.
2. Adverse findings were made against her without issuing notice, violating principles of natural justice.
3. The trial court’s procedure, including dictating an order after being transferred and keeping it in a sealed cover, indicated bias.
4. Her actions as an SP were performed in good faith and were protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
5. No sanction was obtained under Section 197 of the CrPC for prosecuting her as a public servant.
6. The trial should have been conducted summarily, as prescribed for offenses under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State of Haryana supported the appellant’s stance, emphasizing that:

1. The appellant’s role was limited to forwarding a representation.
2. The trial court’s findings against the appellant were made without substantial evidence or adherence to due process.
3. The alleged actions of the appellant fell within the scope of her official duties, meriting protection under the law.

Issues of the Judgment

1. Whether adverse findings against the appellant violated principles of natural justice.
2. Whether the trial court erred in not conducting a summary trial for offenses under Section 58 of the NDPS Act.
3. Whether the appellant’s actions were protected under the immunity clause of Section 69 of the NDPS Act.
4. Whether the trial court exhibited bias in its proceedings.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found that the trial court:

1. Violated natural justice by recording findings against the appellant without notice or hearing.
2. Erred in not adhering to the procedure for summary trials mandated under Section 36-A(5) of the NDPS Act.
3. Exhibited bias, as evidenced by the rushed proceedings and sealed cover judgment.
4. Ignored the appellant’s good faith actions as a public servant, which should be protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.

The Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, condemning the trial court’s approach as prejudiced and legally unsustainable.

Principle of the Case

The judgment reinforces the principles of natural justice, procedural propriety, and judicial impartiality. It also underscores the legal protections afforded to public servants acting in good faith under statutory provisions.

Final Order

The Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the High Court, the observations of the trial court against the appellant, and the show-cause notice issued under Section 58 of the NDPS Act. All subsequent proceedings stemming from these actions were also set aside.

Importance of This Judgment to Society

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural fairness and protecting public servants from unwarranted prosecution for actions performed in good faith. It sets a precedent for ensuring accountability in judicial proceedings and upholding the integrity of public institutions.

Case Citation

Court Name: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Bharti Arora v. The State of Haryana
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1699 of 2011
Date of Judgment: December 13, 2024
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J., and K.V. Viswanathan, J.