The Karnataka High Court recently appreciated Advocate Sarah Sunny, a hearing-impaired counsel who appeared in court and argued a case with the help of a sign language interpreter. It said, “This court records with profound admiration, its appreciation for Miss Sarah Sunny, who has transcended the boundaries of silence.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, “Her endeavour shall remain an enduring inspiration, a luminous reminder that justice in its truest form, not only listens through the ear, but through the heart.”
It added, “The court said Miss Sarah Sunny is a distinguished member of the bar who, despite being hearing impaired, has demonstrated that true advocacy transcends barriers of sound.”
Referring to an article published in the New York Times on 24th March 1982, the Court noted it chronicled a significant moment — the appearance of the first hearing-impaired lawyer before the Supreme Court of the United States, representing a 10-year-old hearing-impaired girl. On that occasion, the Court, for the first time in history, permitted the use of special electronic equipment within its precincts.
Emphasising that courts in Australia have made way for similar accommodations, and that the United Kingdom has extended inclusion to even hearing-impaired jurors through enlightened legislation, the Court said these efforts mark a testament to humanity's collective march towards equality.
The bench said, “Miss Sarah Sunny defied every decibel of doubt, delivered her arguments, with composure and eloquence, which resonated with the same conviction, of any seasoned advocate.”
Noting that hearing-impaired advocates constitute a rare minority, the bench said, “The Constitutional Courts, which are the guardians of equality, bear a solemn duty to facilitate and empower such advocates to help them break the sound barrier that stands between them and their full participation in the judicial process. Her performance before this Court was nothing short of being exemplary. Her submissions, though conveyed through an Interpreter, bore the hallmarks of refined advocacy.”
Advocate Sarah had represented a woman seeking quashment of a Section 41A Cr.P.C. notice issued against her husband and a consequential mandamus seeking a direction to arrest him and produce him before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and to initiate a departmental inquiry against the officers who had let him off, and a further mandamus to issue detailed guidelines regarding procedure to be followed when a person against whom a LOC circular is issued arrives on the soil of the nation.
The husband was detained based on a LOC issued against him on arriving in India from Scotland. He moved the High Court challenging the same and, while the proceedings were pending, suppressing the pendency of the subject petition and day-to-day hearing of the matter, filed an application before the learned Magistrate for recall of the LOC. The learned Magistrate, without hearing any person except the State, recalled the LOC and permitted the husband to travel back to Scotland. The next day, the husband preferred a memo seeking to withdraw the petition filed by him.
The bench, on going through the records and considering that the husband had left India, held, “The LOC, as observed hereinabove, is an executive edict — administrative in its conception and effect, and therefore, beyond the ken of trial Courts to annul or tamper with. The role of such concerned Court is confined strictly to adjudicating the criminal lis before them in accordance with the established procedure. The power to scrutinize, rescind, or uphold a LOC flows solely from the font of constitutional jurisdiction, vested in the writ Courts. To countenance any encroachment upon this settled demarcation of authority would be to invite anarchy into the administration of justice, eroding both comity and coherence within the judicial framework. Therefore, the trial Court has acted beyond its jurisdiction.”
It added, “It is hereby declared and clarified with unmistakable emphasis that the learned Magistrates before whom criminal proceedings are pending, shall not entertain, under any guise or pretext, applications assailing or seeking the recall, suspension or modification of a LOC. Any indulgence by the trial Courts in this regard, shall be deemed to be an act in excess of jurisdiction and will invite serious disapproval.”
Disposing of the petitions, the court directed the Registry to forthwith circulate a copy of this order to all the criminal Courts within the State.
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath a/w Deputy Solicitor General H. Shanthi Bhushan FOR R-1 AND R-2.
HCGP Harish Ganapathy FOR R-3 AND R-4.
Advocate Sarah Sunny And Dr.Renuka V.N, Sign Language Interpreter.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 375
Case Title: Amit Ashok Vyas AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.6227 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.5800 OF 2024
DOWNLOAD NOW 👇👇👇
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment