judicial contradictions

In Dilshad Ali vs . State Of Punjab And Another on 29 May, 2011 punjab and haryana high court held 

"Applying the underlying objective of the expression "moral turpitude" it can be safely inferred that where the act of an employee is deceitful and does not reflect modesty, honesty or good morals, it has to be construed as an act of "moral turpitude". Persons convicted for misappropriation of even his wife's property and asking for dowry by using coercive methods, definitely indulges in an act of dishonesty and is contrary to all canons of modesty and good morals. It is the greed of the husband and greed can never be an honest approach and definitely leads to something which is against good morals.

In view of the above instances, I am of the considered opinion that it was not necessary for the authorities to hold any enquiry against the petitioner after his conviction before passing the order of dismissal. "

Now in a recent case Brahmjeet Kaushal v. Union of India & Ors The Punjab and Haryana High Court  held that not every case filed under Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code can be treated as an offence involving moral turpitude.The court said,

“To elevate every prosecution under Section 498-A, irrespective of its factual substratum, into an ‘offence against society’ and, on that abstract footing, to brand it in all cases as an offence involving moral turpitude, is a proposition which cannot withstand legal scrutiny. If that idea is accepted, then almost every offence in the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita could easily be described as dealing with a ‘societal’ problem, and almost every conviction would have to be treated as involving moral turpitude. This would wipe out the important difference between ordinary criminal offences and only those acts which are so base, vile, depraved or so shocking to the public conscience, that they deserve to be characterised against involving ‘moral turpitude’.”

Now what will happen when we have such conflicting judgements from the same high court is that plethora of cases will be decided both ways and that will not be the end of litigation. Those cases will eventually land in supreme Court and throughout this while convicted government servants will continue to work in important positions of responsibility in a state of limbo. Endless manhours will be spent by officers of various departments in making appeals, counterappeals, giving effect to court judgement in one way and when it is overturned then undoing it all to give effect the other way. Salaries will be stopped and then started or pensions will be stopped or started. All because there is no clarity if 498a attracts moral turpitude or not. This can happen with any other section of ipc also. 

The larger question is the uncertainty in law. As arun shourie writes uncertainty breeds cynicism of law. The need of the hour is a clear exposition of underground principles so that the administrative machinery is certain and swift in the application of law. 

In administration we often talk about a desirable called " iqbal ". Administration does not run as much on procedure as it runs on iqbal loosely translated as social standing. The swiftness with which delinquents are handled outside or inside correspondingly increases or decreases it's iqbal. 

If every application of law becomes a special case which will have to be decided by the courts based on the facts and circumstances of the case, then endless and whole spectrum litigation will become the order of the day. And as is often the won't that government is the biggest litigator will be very nigh true. It's high time courts rescue administration from this ordeal.