Bull in a China Shop

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

Only recently in Jacky v. Antony, (2014) 6 SCC 508 it was decided, “in no case, power under Article 226 can be exercised to question a plaint.” In Radhey Shyam v. Chabbi Nath, [Civil Appeal No. 2548 of 2009] it has been further held, “Judicial Orders of a Civil Court are not amenable to Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226.“

“It remains true that exercise of jurisdiction must be within well-recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a bull in a china shop” [Jai Singh v. MCD, (2010) 9 SCC 385]. Who else could have originally used the phrase “bull in a china shop” other than Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer? See, Mohinder Singh, (1978) 1 SCC 405.

'It's because I'm a bull, isn't it.'

Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath, (2015) 5 SCC 423 held, observations in Paragraph 25 of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, (2003) 6 SCC 675 to be not good law.

– Hon’ble Justice Hemant Gupta, Kiran Devi v. The Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board, [Civil Appeal No. 6149 of 2015] decided on 05.04.2021.

_____

Also see, K.P. Natarajan v. Muthalammal, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2492 of 2021] decided on 16.07.2021 and Telengana State Wakf Board v. Mohamed Muzafar, [Civil Appeal No. 4522 of 2021] decided on 03.08.2021.

'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.