High Court Rules Framed Under Article 227 Cannot Override Law Declared By Supreme Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court

The Court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition filed against an order of the Civil Judge refusing permission to a husband residing in the United States to participate through video conferencing in reconciliation proceedings arising out of a matrimonial dispute.

The petitioner had relied upon the Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023, to contend that virtual appearance was permissible at all stages of judicial proceedings, including reconciliation proceedings in matrimonial disputes.

Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed: “Rules made under Article 227(2)(b) cannot encroach upon the legislative domain of Parliament or the State Legislatures as envisaged under Article 246 of the Constitution of India, nor can they be placed at par so as to take away the basis of the judgment of the Supreme Court or High Court on a subject.”

The Court further held: “The declaration of law by the Hon’ble Apex Court is binding under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Such law cannot be altered, diluted, or rendered ineffective by framing any rule under Article 227(2)(b) by the High Court, inconsistent with the law declared by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”

Advocate B. Abhay Siddanth Mootha appeared for the petitioner.

Background

The petitioner-husband instituted matrimonial proceedings through his power of attorney holder and subsequently sought permission to participate in reconciliation proceedings through video conferencing on the ground that he was residing in the United States and was unable to travel to India due to employment constraints and non-availability of leave.

The respondent opposed the application, contending that no sufficient cause had been shown to permit virtual appearance during reconciliation proceedings and that the petitioner ought to personally participate in the process.

The trial court dismissed the application after observing that the petitioner had earlier indicated his willingness to travel to India and had failed to establish sufficient grounds for permitting participation through video conferencing.

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that Rule 3(i) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023, permitted the use of video conferencing at all stages of judicial proceedings and that the said Rules, having been framed under Article 227 of the Constitution, were binding upon subordinate courts.

It was further argued that after the coming into force of the Rules, 2023, the law declared by the Supreme Court in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), restricting video conferencing in matrimonial reconciliation proceedings, no longer operated in Andhra Pradesh.

Court’s Observation

The High Court extensively examined the constitutional framework governing legislative powers, the scope of Article 227, and the binding nature of judgments delivered by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The Court noted that in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018), the Supreme Court had categorically held that video conferencing in matrimonial disputes could ordinarily be resorted to only after reconciliation efforts had failed and subject to the consent of the parties and judicial discretion.

The Bench observed that the Supreme Court in Santhini had emphasised the importance of in-camera proceedings, confidentiality and physical interaction between parties during reconciliation proceedings under the Family Courts Act and the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Court referred to the observations in Santhini that reconciliation requires both parties to be physically present “at the same place and the same time” and that virtual proceedings may adversely affect emotional communication and settlement efforts in matrimonial disputes.

Rejecting the contention that the Rules, 2023, had rendered Santhini inapplicable in Andhra Pradesh, the High Court held that Rules framed under Article 227 are merely procedural in nature and cannot override parliamentary legislation or binding judicial precedent.

The Court observed that while it is settled law that the basis of a judgment may be removed through valid legislative enactment, such exercise can only be undertaken by Parliament or the State Legislature acting within their legislative competence under Article 246 and the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution.

The Bench relied upon decisions including Tirath Ram Rajindra Nath v. State of U.P. (1973), Hiralal Rattanlal v. State of U.P. (1973), Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa (2004) and State of Rajasthan v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023) to reiterate that only legislative amendment can remove the basis of a judicial decision.

The Court further held that the Family Courts Act and Hindu Marriage Act fall within the legislative domain of Parliament and State Legislatures and that any alteration to the legal position declared in Santhini would necessarily require legislative amendment to those enactments.

The Bench also referred to the proviso to Article 227(2) and (3), which mandates that Rules framed by the High Court cannot be inconsistent with “any law for the time being in force.” The Court clarified that the expression “law” includes not merely statutory provisions but also binding judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court.

It was therefore held that the Rules, 2023, could not be interpreted in a manner inconsistent with the law declared by the Supreme Court in Santhini.

Conclusion

The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that Rules framed under Article 227(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot override parliamentary legislation or dilute binding judgments of the Supreme Court declared under Article 141 of the Constitution.

The Court further held that the Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2023 did not take away the basis of the judgment in Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh (2018) and could not be interpreted to permit video conferencing during reconciliation proceedings in matrimonial disputes contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court.

Cause Title: Bheemisetti Suryanarayana v. Bheemisetti Mrudula Naga

Click here to read/download Judgment