LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a High Court can issue a reasoned order after a considerable delay after pronouncing the operative part of the order?
CASE TYPE: Civil Appellate
Case Name: Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.
[Judgment Date]: 21st October 2024
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 21st October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 801
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Can a High Court deliver a detailed judgment months after pronouncing the operative part of the order in open court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal, expressing strong disapproval of the practice of delayed judgment delivery by the High Courts. This case highlights the importance of timely justice and adherence to established judicial procedures. The bench comprised of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Case Background
The case originated from a petition filed by the appellant in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, challenging an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Kamrej Prant, District Surat, which had confirmed an order of the Mamlatdar, Kamrej. The High Court heard the matter on 1st March, 2023. After hearing the arguments, the learned Judge pronounced the operative part of the order, dismissing the petition.
However, the detailed reasoned order was not issued immediately. The appellant’s counsel believed that the detailed order was reserved. The appellant received a soft copy of the reasoned order dated 1st March, 2023, only on 30th April, 2024, more than a year after the initial hearing. The appellant alleged that the reasoned order was created much later and backdated to 1st March, 2023.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 23rd February, 2015 | Mamlatdar, Kamrej, passed an order. |
| 16th June, 2015 | Deputy Collector, Kamrej Prant, District Surat, confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar. |
| 2015 | R/Special Civil Application No. 10912 of 2015 was filed in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. |
| 1st March, 2023 | High Court heard the petition and pronounced the operative part of the order, dismissing the petition. |
| 1st March, 2023 | Disposal Log Report of the High Court recorded that the petition was disposed of. |
| April 12, 2024 | The learned Judge dictated the reasoned order to his personal secretary. |
| 30th April, 2024 | The reasoned order was uploaded on the High Court website and communicated to the appellant’s counsel. |
| 12th August, 2024 | Supreme Court ordered a report from the Registrar General of the High Court. |
| 21st October, 2024 | Supreme Court delivered the judgment in the present appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellant had initially filed a petition in the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order of the Deputy Collector, Kamrej Prant, District Surat. The High Court dismissed the petition on 1st March, 2023, after hearing the parties, pronouncing only the operative portion of the order. The detailed order was not made available until more than a year later. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s procedure.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which deals with the pronouncement of judgments. It states that a judgment can be pronounced in open court either immediately or as soon as practicable on a future day. The Court also referred to Article 141 of the Constitution of India, which states that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India.
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra [(2021) 12 SCC 603] and Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University [(1988) 1 SCC 80] and Anil Rai vs State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318].
The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and the need for prompt delivery of judgments.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the High Court had passed the reasoned order more than a year after the hearing and had backdated it to 1st March, 2023. The appellant contended that the reasoned order was not available on the official website of the High Court until 30th April, 2024. The appellant’s counsel submitted that he was under the belief that the detailed order was reserved and hence, did not apply for a certified copy.
The Supreme Court also took note of the fact that the learned Judge of the High Court did not express that the reasons for the dismissal would follow.
The respondent did not make any submissions in the present appeal.
Submissions Table
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Delay in Issuing Reasoned Order | Reasoned order issued more than a year after the hearing. | Appellant |
| Order was backdated to 1st March, 2023. | Appellant | |
| Reasoned order was not available on the official website until 30th April, 2024. | Appellant | |
| Lack of Communication | Appellant’s counsel believed the detailed order was reserved. | Appellant |
| The learned Judge did not express that reasons for dismissal would follow. | Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame any specific issues but considered the following:
- Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a reasoned order more than a year after pronouncing the operative part of the order.
- Whether the High Court was justified in backdating the reasoned order.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in issuing a reasoned order more than a year after pronouncing the operative part of the order. | Not Justified | The Court held that the High Court should have issued the reasoned order promptly or at least within a reasonable time after pronouncing the operative part of the order. The delay of more than a year was deemed unacceptable. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in backdating the reasoned order. | Not Justified | The Court found that the High Court had indeed backdated the order, which was a serious breach of judicial ethics and norms. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases
- Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra [(2021) 12 SCC 603] – The Supreme Court reiterated the need for prompt delivery of judgments and that delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University [(1988) 1 SCC 80] – The Supreme Court held that when a judgment is pronounced in open court, parties act on the basis that it is the operative judgment and that signing is a mere formality. However, in exceptional circumstances, an order pronounced in open court can be amended or even altered before the same has been authenticated by the Judge by signing the order but such a course ought to be adopted judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons and upon putting the parties to notice.
- Anil Rai vs State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318] – The Supreme Court had laid down the time limit for delivering judgments by the High Courts.
- Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. vs State of Bihar [(2004) 5 SCC 1] – The Supreme Court discussed the unified hierarchical judicial structure in India.
- R. vs Sussex JJ., ex p McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256] – The Court referred to the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
Statutes
- Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The Court referred to the provisions relating to pronouncement of judgments.
- Article 141 of the Constitution of India – The Court referred to the binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court.
Authorities Table
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra [(2021) 12 SCC 603] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; Emphasized the need for prompt delivery of judgments. |
| Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University [(1988) 1 SCC 80] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; Highlighted that a judgment pronounced in open court is the operative judgment. |
| Anil Rai vs State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; Referred to the time limit for delivering judgments by the High Courts. |
| Tirupati Balaji Developers (P) Ltd. vs State of Bihar [(2004) 5 SCC 1] | Supreme Court of India | Followed; Discussed the unified hierarchical judicial structure in India. |
| R. vs Sussex JJ., ex p McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256] | King’s Bench Division | Followed; Referred to the principle that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. |
| Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 | Indian Parliament | Followed; Referred to the provisions relating to pronouncement of judgments. |
| Article 141 of the Constitution of India | Constituent Assembly of India | Followed; Referred to the binding nature of the law declared by the Supreme Court. |
Judgment
Treatment of Submissions
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The High Court had passed the reasoned order more than a year after the hearing and had backdated it to 1st March, 2023. | The Court accepted this submission, finding that the High Court had indeed backdated the order, which was a serious breach of judicial ethics and norms. |
| The reasoned order was not available on the official website of the High Court until 30th April, 2024. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that this delay was unacceptable and contributed to the perception of injustice. |
| The appellant’s counsel believed that the detailed order was reserved. | The Court noted this submission, highlighting the confusion caused by the High Court’s procedure. |
| The learned Judge of the High Court did not express that the reasons for the dismissal would follow. | The Court accepted this submission, noting that this created a situation where the Court became functus officio. |
Treatment of Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities to support its reasoning:
- Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra [(2021) 12 SCC 603]:* The Court reiterated the need for prompt delivery of judgments and observed that delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
- Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University [(1988) 1 SCC 80]:* The Court held that when a judgment is pronounced in open court, parties act on the basis that it is the operative judgment and that signing is a mere formality.
- Anil Rai vs State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318]:* The Court referred to the time limit for delivering judgments by the High Courts.
- R. vs Sussex JJ., ex p McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256]:* The Court referred to the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with maintaining judicial discipline and ensuring that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done. The Court emphasized the importance of prompt delivery of judgments and adherence to established procedures. The Court also expressed concern that the High Court’s actions had eroded public trust in the judiciary. The Court was also concerned with the fact that the High Court had backdated the reasoned order, which was a serious breach of judicial ethics and norms.
Sentiment Analysis
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Judicial Discipline | 30% |
| Timely Justice | 30% |
| Adherence to Procedure | 20% |
| Public Trust in Judiciary | 10% |
| Ethical Conduct | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s actions were a serious breach of judicial discipline and ethics. The Court emphasized that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. The Court also highlighted the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.
The Supreme Court observed that the learned Judge of the High Court, after realizing the omission to assign reasons for dismissal, should have brought the matter back on board, recalled the verbal order of dismissal, and placed it before the Chief Justice of the High Court for assigning it to another bench for fresh consideration.
The Court noted that while it is understandable that judges may make mistakes, it is important to learn from those mistakes and take corrective action. The Court also noted that while the weight of work on judges is immense, instances such as the one under consideration bring disrepute to the judicial system.
The Court also observed that the High Court had not followed the principles laid down in its earlier judgments, particularly in Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra [(2021) 12 SCC 603].
The Supreme Court also noted that the High Court had not followed the procedure as laid down in Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the petition to the file of the High Court. The Court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court to place the petition before another judge for fresh consideration.
The Supreme Court also made it clear that it had not examined the rival claims on merits and that the High Court should consider and decide the petition uninfluenced by any observation made in the order bearing the date 1st March, 2023.
The Court quoted the principle that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” from the case of R. vs Sussex JJ., ex p McCarthy [(1924) 1 KB 256].
The Court also made some observations for future guidance, emphasizing the need for prompt pronouncement of judgments, and suggesting that if a judge chooses to pronounce the operative part of the order and then provide the reasons later, the reasons should be made available within 2 to 5 days.
The Court also observed that if the ultimate order would have the effect of changing the status of the parties or the subject matter of the lis, it would always be advisable to stick to the course envisaged in Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The Court also made it clear that it was not giving any unsolicited advice to the High Court, but was only sharing its thoughts for the purpose of future guidance.
The Supreme Court also noted that it was aware of the immense pressure of work on the judges of the High Courts and that it was looking at the issue with grace and compassion.
The Court quoted the universal truth “to err is human, to forgive is divine,” emphasizing the human tendency of committing mistakes and the importance of forgiving a human error.
The Court noted that it was not remarking adversely on the High Court, but was only trying to promote empathy and understanding.
The Court also noted that it was conscious of the fact that the judges of the High Courts were working overtime to render justice to the litigants.
The Court concluded that it was allowing the controversy to rest there.
The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:
- “Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments —an aspect repeatedly emphasised by this Court.”
- “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”
- “to err is human, to forgive is divine”
Key Takeaways
- High Courts must ensure prompt delivery of judgments.
- Reasoned orders should be issued without undue delay after the pronouncement of the operative part of the order.
- Backdating of orders is a serious breach of judicial ethics.
- Judges should adhere to established procedures and maintain judicial discipline.
- Public trust in the judiciary must be preserved.
- If reasons are not given immediately after pronouncement of operative part of the order, then the reasons should be made available within 2 to 5 days.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restored the petition to the file of the High Court. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court was requested to place the petition before another judge for fresh consideration. The High Court was directed to consider and decide the petition uninfluenced by any observation made in the order bearing the date 1st March, 2023.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that High Courts must ensure prompt delivery of judgments and that backdating of orders is a serious breach of judicial ethics. The case also reiterates the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary. The case also provides a guideline for future cases, directing that the reasons should be made available within 2 to 5 days if the operative part of the order is pronounced and the reasons are to be provided later.
The Supreme Court has not changed any previous position of law, but has reinforced the existing principles of judicial discipline and ethical conduct.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs. State of Gujarat is a significant reminder of the importance of timely justice and adherence to established judicial procedures. The Court’s strong disapproval of the High Court’s actions underscores the need for judicial discipline and ethical conduct. The judgment also provides valuable guidance for future cases, emphasizing the need for prompt delivery of judgments and the importance of maintaining public trust in the judiciary.