On Friday, Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, while asking "if we do not act in matters of personal liberty and grant relief, then what are we doing here?" stated that No case is too small for the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Union Law Minister Kiren Rijiju stated in Parliament yesterday that constitutional disputes should be heard by the Supreme Court rather than bail applications.

As soon as the matter was taken, the bench of CJI Chandrachud and Justice PS Narasimha noted that the appellant had already served seven years of his sentence and that the appellant had approached the Supreme Court after the Allahabad High Court refused to order that his sentences run concurrently, calling the appellant's case "absolutely shocking case."

"If the Supreme Court is not to interfere in this matter, what are we here for? If we don't interfere in matters of personal liberty, and we don't order the release of this person, then what are we here for. We are then acting in breach of Article 136 of the Constitution", CJI Chandrachud said.

The bench asked senior Asvocate and former Madras High Court judge S Nagamutu for help in resolving what it described as a "unusual scenario" when he was present in court for another matter.

The bench stated in the order that "the right to personal liberty is an inalienable right. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs its duty, no more and no less".

"The facts of the present case provide another instance, a glaring one at that, indicating a justification for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction as a protector of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty inherent in every citizen. If the court were not to do so, the serious miscarriage of justice of the nature which has emerged in the present case would be allowed to persist and the voice of the citizen whose liberty has been abrogated would receive no attention", the bench stated in the order.

"The history of this court indicates that it is in the seemingly small and routine matters involving grievances of citizens that issues of moment, both in jurisprudential and constitutional terms, emerge. The intervention by this court to protect the liberty of the citizens is hence founded on sound constitutional principles embodied in Article 136 of the Constitution.  The right to personal liberty is a precious and inalienable right recognized by the Constitution. In attending to such grievances, the Supreme Court performs a plain constitutional duty, obligation and function; no more and no less", the bench added in the order.

The bench allowed the appeal by ordering that the sentences in the nine cases against the appellant should run concurrently.

"All said and done, you cannot elevate the theft of electricity to murder", CJI Chandrachud remarked after dictating the order, while adding that the High Court should have intervened in the matter.

Case Title : Iqram v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 
Citation: SLP (Crl) No. 8238/2022