The Case of Jolly George Verghese v The Bank of Cochin (1980)

August 7, 2024

In the case jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin, the Court ruled that Municipal Courts are not the appropriate venue to seek redress for violations of international law. This is because international law cannot be enforced until it first takes the shape of municipal legislation. It was decided that international law cannot be a component of the State’s corpus juris; rather, it must first take the shape of municipal law.

jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin Case Facts

  • The respondent was the decree holder and was awarded a money decree of Rs. 2.5 lakhs against the appellant. The appellants were subject to two additional money decrees, with a total amount owed exceeding Rs. 7 lakhs.
  • In accordance with Section 51 and order 21 rule 37 of the civil procedure code, a warrant for the appellants’ arrest and incarceration in the civil prison was issued during the decree’s execution. An identical arrest warrant was previously issued against the appellants in accordance with the same decree.
  • With the exception of the arrest warrant, the decree holders took action against the appellants’ properties; as a result, all of the appellants’ immovable property was attached and put up for sale to pay off the decree obligations.
  • The execution court designated a receiver to oversee the associated property. The court revoked the appellant’s ability to alienate the properties.
  • But the court issued an arrest warrant since it had already issued one of these.
  • The appellant’s revision of the arrest order was denied by the High Court.
  • The appellant appealed the High Court’s ruling in a special appeal.

jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin Issues

  • Is taking someone away from their freedom justifiable because they haven’t fulfilled their end of the bargain?
  • Whether S. 51 read with order 21 rule 37 of the civil procedure code does warrant such a move, and whether the appellant’s personal freedom can be held in ransom until the debt is paid?
  • Does the law’s constitutional legality rest on the fair procedure standard found in article 21 of the indian constitution?

jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin Judgment

In jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin, the court granted the appeal, holding that incarceration cannot be justified by simply failing to pay off a debt. The court emphasized that in addition to the present ability to pay, the law needs proof of some bad faith or refusal to pay.

article 21 of the indian constitution, which forbids unjustified imprisonment, upholds the principles of human dignity and personal freedom, which were emphasized by the court in jolly george verghese v the bank of cochin.

  • section 51 of cpc: The court noted that the phrase “or has had since the date of the decree the capacity to pay the amount of the decree” in section 51of cpc suggests that judgment debtors shouldn’t be put in jail unless there is evidence of their current financial situation or they have a history of deceitful payment avoidance.
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The court stated that individuals should not be imprisoned in India because they are unable to pay their debts, given the country is a signatory to this covenant. The court did say, however, that the CPC will continue to have jurisdiction over these issues unless municipal law is modified to comply with the covenant.
  • article 21 of the indian constitution: The court argued that arresting someone based only on their poverty and incapacity to pay is against article 21 of the indian constitution, it safeguards their freedom of choice and right to live. The court acknowledged that being poor is not a criminal offense.

The Jolly Varghese case sheds light on the interactions between state laws and international treaties, two different legal frameworks. India adheres to the state dualist theory of international law, which states that in the absence of national law, the government cannot be directed to abide by any international treaty. 

Human Rights in National and International Law expressly states that before any international treaties can be actively exercised under the state’s rule of law, they must first be incorporated into municipal legislation.

Paradoxically, though, the treaties are regarded as self-enforcing, meaning that they take effect immediately in local contexts, excluding situations in which a new legislation needs to be enacted or the Constitution needs to be amended.

With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!

For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf

Leave a Comment