The Omnibus Jurisdiction of The SC and Kalawati case of 1953

"Petitioners these days are invoking the jurisdiction of the court in all matters whether it be education or migrants... like an omnibus jurisdiction." hile hearing a plea seeking exemption from payment of school fees in Uttarakhand due to COVID-19, CJI SA Bobde remarked, SEE--Link

https://www.latestlaws.com/latest-news/petitioners-these-days-invoking-sc-s-jurisdiction-in-all-matters-like-an-omnibus-jurisdiction-remarks-cji-sa-bobde/

In context of above oral observation, the observation of a Constitution bench is relevant. It was made in Kalawati vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh (19 January, 1953) AIR 1953 SC 131, 1953 SCR 546

It was a murder case. The deceased husband (a Jaminadr) used to harass and torture his wife (also from a jamindar family). The wife (Kalawati ) developed intimate relationship with a cousin who planned to kill husband. Husband was killed. "The  accused was charged under ss. 114 and 302, Penal  Code, with  abetment of murder.  The Sessions Judge acquitted her of  this charge and convicted her under s. 201, Penal  Code, for   suppressing  evidence  of murder and  giving   false information. 

On appeal by the accused as well as the State, the Judicial Commissioner set aside the conviction under s. 201 and convicted the accused under ss. 114 and 302. However, the Judicial Commissioner of HP "thought that as the confirmation of sentence of death as a matter of practice prevailing in the High Courts was generally made by a Bench of two Judges at least, it was not fit and proper that the matter should rest with his own decision sitting singly."

This was a wise decision because it was matter of death sentence. The Supreme Court did not appreciate the precaution of HP. It held :

"We feel bound to state that the reason he has given for certifying the case as a fit one for appeal under article 134 (1) (c) is not sound. If in any particular State there is only one Judicial Commissioner as the ultimate appellate authority, and if the confirmation of sentence of death has to be made by him, the procedure laid down must be followed. The fact that there is not a Bench of two Judges as in the High Courts to deal with death sentences is not an adequate ground for converting the Supreme Court into an ordinary court of appeal and confirmation in such matters. It is unnecessary, however, to pursue this subject further, as we have heard the two appeals on their merits is well."

There are two points for our consideration. The SC should have appreciated the approach of the Judicial Commissioner because the punishment given was death, which was irreversible. "Abundant caution" doctrine ought to be invoked and the SC should ve encouraged this practice. There are many instances when the higher courts ve invoked better wisdom than the SC.

The second point is regarding the "doctrine of originalism". The SC is not made a court for all jurisdiction. While the capital punishment issue is an exception, matters should not come to the SC just bcz the party can afford. The harm is that the SC is not able to focus on constitutional issues of national importance.