If 'Reasons To Follow' Orders Are Passed, Make Reasons Available In Public Domain Within 2-5 Days : Supreme Court Urges HC Judges
The Supreme Court observed that High Court Judges, if they are passing 'reasons to follow' order, should preferably make the reasons available in the public domain within 2 to 5 days.
The Court set aside the decision of the Gujarat High Court that had been delayed by over a year after the oral pronouncement of dismissal. The Bench pointing out the “distressing trend,” observed that the “neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents augurs ill for the health of the system” and tantamounts to “disservice to the institution of the judiciary.”
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “However, while it would be prudent to leave it to the learned Judges to pick any one of the three options [(i) dictation of the judgment in open court, (ii) reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome], it would be in the interest of justice if any learned Judge, who prefers the third option (supra), makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within 2 (two) days thereof but, in any case, not beyond 5 (five) days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the mind of the party losing the legal battle. If the pressure of work is such that in the assessment of the learned Judge the reasons in support of the final judgment cannot be made available, without fail, in 5 (five) days, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment.”
AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia represented the appellants, while AOR Deepanwita Priyanka for the respondents.
The case was about the delayed delivery of an order by the High Court. The appellant was informed about the dismissal of their case in March 2023, but the detailed reasoned judgment was not available until April 2024. The delay, the appellants argued, deprived them of the opportunity to seek timely redress in a higher court.
The Supreme Court, reiterating its decision in Balaji Baliram Mupade vs. State of Maharashtra observed that “judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments,”
“We are surprised, not a little, that the strong reminders issued by this Court from time to time have had little effect on the high courts in the country and that decisions, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, are being persistently ignored. It has been stressed time and again over the years and we feel pained to observe, once more, that neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents augurs ill for the health of the system. Not only does it tantamount to disservice to the institution of the judiciary but also affects the administration of justice,” the Court remarked.
The Bench stated that it was it was patently clear from the proceedings of the high court, that it “did not even express that the reasons would follow for the dismissal of the petition. Not having so expressed, His Lordship practically rendered the court functus officio.”
“Having said thus, and bearing in mind the onerous responsibilities that learned Judges of the high courts across the country have to shoulder on a daily basis, we are persuaded to think that the duty and responsibility of assigning reasons for dismissal of the petition completely escaped the mind of the learned Judge. Perhaps, there is hardly any individual including any Judge who can truly claim to have committed no mistake in his life. It is a feature of human fallibility that people are prone to commit mistakes,” the Bench remarked.
Consequently, the Court observed, “Nonetheless, we regret to observe that the learned Judge having realised in April, 2024 of having omitted to assign reasons for dismissal of the petition although His Lordship had pronounced “dismissed” in open court proceedings on 1st March, 2023, could have avoided committing an act of indiscretion, by breaching all norms of ethics, in proceeding to assign reasons more than a year later. In accordance with the highest standards of fairness, propriety and discipline, the need of the hour required the learned Judge to bring the matter back on board once again, recall the verbal order of dismissal and place it before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court for assigning it to some other Bench for fresh consideration.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
Cause Title: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 801)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia; Advocate Shailesh R. Patel
Respondents: AOR Deepanwita Priyanka