"We Feel Pained; These Are Distressing Trends Indeed": Supreme Court Expresses Concern About High Court Judges Ignoring Binding Precedents

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 observed that the high court Judges should remain “committed to the service of the litigants, for whom only they exist, as well as the oath of office that they have taken.” The Court also observed that if the Judges were passing 'reasons to follow' order, they should preferably make the reasons available in the public domain within 2 to 5 days.

A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed, “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. For a learned Judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation. We sincerely hope that learned Judges of the high courts while being careful and cautious will remain committed to the service of the litigants, for whom only they exist, as well as the oath of office that they have taken so that, in future, we are not presented with another case of similar nature to deal with.”

AOR Anushree Prashit Kapadia represented the appellants, while AOR Deepanwita Priyanka for the respondents.

The case concerned the delayed delivery of an order by the High Court. The appellants were informed about the dismissal of their case in March 2023, but the detailed reasoned judgment was not available until April 2024. The appellants argued that the delay deprived them of the opportunity to seek timely redress in a higher court.

The Supreme Court, reiterating its decision in Balaji Baliram Mupade v. State of Maharashtra (2021) observed that “Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments—an aspect repeatedly emphasised by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny,”

“In this case, which is a civil appeal arising from a judgment and order bearing the date 1st March, 2023, we find the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad to have egregiously breached the law,” 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.”

“In an attempt to save time to attend to as many cases as possible, certain learned Judges unwittingly are contributing to justice being delayed in given cases which, concomitantly, have been giving rise to criticism of unpleasant flavours. Critics of such practice (to pronounce the operative part with the outcome and to provide the reasons later in detailed final judgments) could and do legitimately argue in favour of reserving judgments as required by the procedural laws if the particular case so demands but as Judges, we know, reserving too many judgments has its own pitfalls. Once the files pile up, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember the minute details of the case and the arguments advanced by the parties in support of their respective cases which leads to a shift to rely on the written notes of arguments,” 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

Click here to read/download the Judgment