Apex Court Calls For Report From Madras HC Regarding CBI's Allegation That Reasoned Order In A Case Was Authored By Justice T Mathivanan Post His Retirement

The Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to furnish information regarding a one-liner judgment/order passed by the High Court and the detailed judgment/order which was not available until the day the Judge demitted his office.

The Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih directed, "We, therefore, direct the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Chennai to furnish following information: (a) What is the date on which the detailed judgment/order dated 15th May, 2017 was received by the Registry from the Office/Chamber of the learned Single Judge; (b) When the detailed judgment/order was uploaded on the website of the High Court; and (c) Whether there was any administrative direction issued by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the Madras High Court at Chennai for de novo hearing of 09 cases heard by the learned Single Judge and, if such a direction was issued, whether the case subject-matter of this Special Leave Petition has been included in the list of 09 cases."

A Special Leave Petition was filed by the CBI, assailing a judgment/order passed by the Madras High Court quashing an FIR by a one-liner order/judgment on May 15, 2017. According to the case of the petitioner, on the very day, the petitioner applied for a grant of a certified copy of the said order. However, as per the oral information from the Registry of the High Court, the Judge had not issued a detailed order. Thereafter, the Petitioner in its plea stated that the certified copy of the impugned judgment was furnished to the Petitioner on July 26, 2017, and that the detailed reasoned order of the Judge was not available until the date he demitted the office.

The case before the High Court was filed involving an IRS officer from the 1999 batch, accused of possessing disproportionate assets. At the time the FIR was filed, the officer was serving as the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. It was alleged that the officer and his wife amassed assets and financial resources exceeding Rs. 3.2 Crores between January 1, 2002, and August 30, 2014. The CBI asserted that these assets were disproportionate to their legitimate income and have not been adequately justified. The High Court had quashed the FIR.

The petition raised the questions of law of 1) whether a Judge can pass detailed order after his/her superannuation; 2) whether he can retain judicial records for passing detailed orders after superannuation; 3) whether he can retain judicial records at his/her residence after superannuation and if so, what is the time for which such judicial records can be retained at the residence?; 4) whether there ought to be any time limit for the pronouncement of detailed order/judgment after passing of a one-liner order if so, what should be the time limit for the same and whether such time limit can be extended beyond the retirement of the Judge; 5) whether such order can be passed belatedly with back date.

The Court referred to an Annexure, which was a letter addressed by the Special Public Prosecutor of CBI, Chennai to the Joint Director of CBI, Chennai Zone, Chennai and said that as per the directions of the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, nine cases, which were heard by the said Judge, were ordered to be heard afresh.

The Court had previously, in another matter, quashed a judgment of the Madras High Court and observed, "There were five weeks available for the learned Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment running into more than 250 pages has come out after a lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us, retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance what has been done in this case."

Accordingly, the matter is now listed on October 1, 2024.