Lalita Kumari I

Misra J. just had his “oww lolitaaa” moment. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 was decided on 12th November, 2013 and in a comment I contributed elsewhere six days later, my conclusion was this: “To speak of the mandatory nature of the language employed in Section 154 and yet keep the field open for conditions that may warrant a preliminary inquiry is absurd. In my estimate the judgment is not as path breaking as it could seem at first look. It will be interesting to see how Lalita Kumari is used as a precedent in future cases. Mandatory Indeed to Register a First Information Report?

By rejecting Mr. Bhushan’s petition seeking registration of an F.I.R. against Justice C.K. Prasad for gross corruption, the Indian Supreme Court has once again sought to bury corruption by one of its own members under the carpet, forgetting that however much one may seek to conceal it, the bulge will show.

By refusing to apply Lalita, Misra J. denied himself a shot at constructive verbosity. Otherwise, he is not the one to shy away from an embellished speech. The  truth remains that Mr. A.K. Prasad has been practicing at the Supreme Court unabashedly. And all this while Mr. C.K. Prasad was a SC judge. I am sure that Mr. Bhushan will find an alternative way to open that ‘dangerous door’ – Lalita or no Lalita!