What we have said above is to emphasise that the view of the Union government is based on a considered assessment of security perceptions and ought not to have been interfered with in the manner that the Lawyers Chandigarh High Court Court did in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 We are not called upon to decide upon the legality or justification for the inclusion of the name of any particular individual in the list of exempted persons in these proceedings.
The procedure to be followed may not be as elaborate as in a court of law and it may be very summary, but it must contain the essential elements of judicial procedure as indicated by me. At the outset, we may clarify that though learned counsel for the appellant has commended us to certain authorities with regard to role of the appellant, the concept of possession and how the possession is not covered under Section 292 IPC, we are not disposed to enter into the said arenas.
We shall only restrict to the interpretative aspect as already stated. Again, a large number of cases were cited to show various instances Advocates in High Court Chandigarh which a person or persons was or were held to act judicially or quasi-judicially, but those cases, as I have already indicated, often obscure what may otherwise be a simple question; and apart from the fact that this Court is not bound to refer to cases unless it finds it necessary to do so, I fully share the view ex- pressed by the Privy Council in Wijeyesekar v.
Matters of security are not issues of prestige. Article 133 deals with the appellate jurisdiction of this Court in civil matters only, and it has been drafted on the lines of sections 109 and 110 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or final order of a High Court, whether in a civil, criminal or other proceeding, if the High Court certifies that the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution.
That apart, it is really to be seen whether an activity emanating from electronic form which may be obscene would be punishable under Section 292 IPC or Section 67 of the IT Act or both or any other provision of the IT Act The labour legislation in that case was the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. But that apart, there is a more fundamental reason why the case should not have been entertained and directions of this nature ought not to have been issued.
In that case, which related to a Ceylon Ordinance, one of the provisions of which appears to be similar in certain respects to section a of the Ordinance before us, the Privy Council observed: Festing (1)as to why cases decided under different enactments are often not very helpful. Heads of foreign missions in India are exempted from pre-embarkation security checks on a reciprocal basis. The relevant articles of the Constitution dealing with the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court are articles 132 to 136.
They are not matters of ˜status. Article 132 applies both to civil and criminal cases and under it an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, decree. Even assuming that the intervention of the High Court in such a matter could have been invoked in the first place (though we believe it should not have been) the matter should have rested there. Umadevi Famous Chandigarh Lawyer (3) does not denude the Industrial and Labour Courts of their statutory power under Section 30 read with Section 32 of the MRTU and PULP Act to order permanency of the workers who have been victims of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV where the posts on which they have been working exist.
n11 By the time that the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the case, the list of exemptions had been modified to include Chief Justices of High Courts in the list of persons exempted from pre-embarkation security. To appreciate the said facet, it is essential to understand certain provisions that find place in the IT Act and how the Court has understood the same. nIt seems also necessary to make a few general observa- tions relating to the powers of this Court to grant special leave to appeal in criminal cases.
Umadevi (3) cannot be held to have overridden the powers of the Industrial and Labour Courts in passing appropriate order under Section 30 of the MRTU and PULP Act, once unfair labour practice on the part of the employer under Item 6 of Schedule IV is established. The security perception of the Union government is that no exemption can be granted to a dignitary if he/she is not under effective government security coverage on a 24×7 basis. The direction to include judges of the High Court Chandigarh Advocates Court was unrelated to the very basis on which the jurisdiction under Article 226 was invoked.
The Union government has adopted the position that the issue as to whether pre-embarkation security exemptions should be granted does not depend only on the warrant of precedence. Among the factors which are borne in mind is that the person who is exempted from pre- embarkation security checks must, according to the government, be secured by such a level of government security on a 24×7 basis, which would virtually preclude the possibility of any prohibited or dangerous items being introduced on board an aircraft through his or her baggage.
The cause for which the suo moto writ petition was registered was left behind and the episode which led to the invocation of the jurisdiction found no place in the ultimate directions. In some of the cases which were cited before us and which have been discussed in the elaborate judgments under appeal, an attempt has been made to lay down certain formu- lae for determining whether an order is a judicial or quasi-judicial order or not, but in my opinion it is safer to grasp the principle than to depend on the application of any formula or formulae.