The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), who unilaterally decided to form a new medical board—despite the Sessions Court having already rejected such a request.
The High Court criticized this move, stating that “any transgression by the executive into the domain of the judiciary would not only undermine institutional accountability but also has the potential to demolish the functional legal system in place creating complete chaos.”
The matter concerns an ongoing attempt to murder case, where a two-member medical board initially concluded that the victim’s head injury was “dangerous to life.” When an application was made for re-examination, the Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed it. The case then moved to the Sessions Court, which framed charges. However, another similar request was made—this time not to the judiciary, but to the SDM.
Shockingly, the SDM accepted the request and constituted a second medical board, even though the matter was already under trial. The new board, after a delay of ten months, provided an altered opinion—that the head injury was “grievous in nature but not dangerous to life.”
Read Also:- Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Haryana Govt to Establish Fast Track POCSO Courts Within Two Months
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while hearing the matter, stated:
“It is painfully apparent that respondents have acted with malice and without any authority of law, with intent to influence the outcome of the trial pending before learned Sessions Court. It is well settled that actions of the executive, with an oblique or indirect object, will be attributed to 'malice in law'.”
The court declared that the SDM clearly overstepped legal boundaries and encroached upon judicial functions while the case was actively under trial.
“It is absolutely baffling as to how an Executive officer, so unhesitatingly, overstepped his jurisdiction and inflicted a legal injury with such audacity and an unfathomably blatant disregard for the rule of law and principles of natural justice,” the bench remarked.
The High Court emphasized that the SDM acted upon the statements of a respondent who had no legal standing in the matter—someone not connected to the accused, and who had no right to interfere in a sub judice criminal trial.
Justice Brar strongly stated:
“The legislative mandate has established a due procedure of law and provided a structured legal system vesting separate and distinct power of adjudication in judiciary alone. The accountability of the judicial actions is tested under the revisional and appellate jurisdiction.”
The court made it clear that judicial decisions are the exclusive domain of the judiciary. Any executive interference violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and disturbs the integrity of the justice system.
It further observed that such overreach, if left unchecked, could have serious consequences:
“If such encroachment upon the authority and functions of the judiciary is ignored, it would create chaos in the process of administration of justice.”
The High Court noted that executive officers cannot override or bypass court procedures, nor can they issue orders that usurp the judicial role.
A plea had been filed urging the court to take appropriate action against the SDM of Badkhal, Faridabad, for interfering in the ongoing attempt to murder case. After reviewing all submissions, the court held that the SDM and the medical officers involved appeared to have acted with “mala fide intent” and that their actions demanded serious inquiry.
“The power to adjudicate upon matters involving criminal law rests with the Courts alone and are subject to fair procedure, which includes four essential components: due notice, opportunity of being heard, impartial and independent forum, and orderly procedure,” the bench noted.
The court directed that the Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary of the Health Department, Government of Haryana, be impleaded as respondents. They were instructed to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the CMO and the second Medical Board within three days.
Mr. Manoj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana.
Title: Harish Sharma v. State of Haryana and others
