Fodder scam: Courts should be consistent in its findings, SC

The Supreme Court was today critical of the Jharkhand High Court orders quashing criminal conspiracy charges against former Bihar chief minister Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra while retaining them against other accused in the same facts and circumstances.
The apex court said the courts need to be "careful and consistent" in their findings as people have faith in the system and it should not take different view in same matters with respect to different accused in same facts and case.
"The court ought to have been careful while dealing with matters and consistency is the hallmark of the court due to which people have faith in the system and it is not open to the court to take a different view in the same matter with reference to different accused persons in the same facts and same case," a bench of Justice Arun Mishra and Amitava Roy said.

While dealing with former RJD MP R K Rana's verdict where the Jharkhand High Court in contrast to finding given in Lalu Yadav case in fodder scam where it has quashed the trial said it is constrained to observe that the same judge had taken a different view.
In Rana's case, the same high court judge had noted that there was some overlapping of facts but the offences were different and hence needed separate trial.
"Judicial discipline requires that such a blatant contradiction in such an important matter should have been avoided. The order passed in the case of Dr R K Rana was on sound basis and though the court had noted that there was some overlapping of facts but the offences were different, it, however, has taken a different view in the impugned order for the reasons which are not understandable," it said.

The bench said that such "inconsistent decision-making" ought to have been avoided at all costs so as to ensure credibility of the system.
"The impugned orders are palpably illegal, faulty and contrary to the basic principles of law and Judge has ignored large number of binding decisions of this Court while giving impermissible benefit to the accused persons and delayed the case for several years.
"Interference had been made at the advanced stage of the case which was wholly unwarranted and uncalled for. Let now amends be made by expediting the trial without any further hindrance from any quarter," the bench said.