Supreme Court Sets Aside Madras High Court Judgment Due to Delayed Release: State vs. Naresh Prasad Agarwal (2024)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 120

Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Can a judgment be considered valid if the detailed reasoning is provided significantly after the judge has left office? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question concerning judicial propriety and the timely delivery of justice. This case involves an appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras where the detailed reasoning for the order was released five months after the judge had demitted office. The Supreme Court, in this case, had to consider whether such a delay in releasing the detailed judgment was acceptable.

Case Background

The case originated from a charge sheet filed in CC No.3 of 2014, which was pending before the Special Judge, CBI cases, Chennai. The respondents had filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the charge sheet. Additionally, they filed a Criminal Revision Application challenging the rejection of their discharge application by the Special Judge. The High Court of Judicature at Madras, through a single judge, decided both these matters through a common judgment. The High Court quashed the charge sheet against the first respondent and ordered the discharge of another accused. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced on 17th April 2017, but the detailed judgment was released only on 23rd October 2017, about five months after the judge had demitted office on 26th May 2017.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondents had initially approached the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking to quash the charge sheet and challenging the rejection of their discharge application. The single judge of the High Court allowed their plea, quashing the charge sheet against one respondent and ordering the discharge of another. However, the Supreme Court noted that while the operative part of the judgment was pronounced on April 17, 2017, the detailed judgment was released on October 23, 2017, five months after the judge had demitted office. This delay and the circumstances surrounding it led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the principles of judicial propriety and the need for timely justice. While no specific section or statute has been quoted in the judgment, the Supreme Court’s decision is based on the fundamental principle that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of judges releasing reasoned judgments promptly, especially before demitting office.

Arguments

The appellant (State through Inspector of Police CBI Chennai) argued that the High Court judgment should be set aside due to the significant delay in releasing the detailed judgment. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced on 17th April 2017, but the reasoned judgment was released only on 23rd October 2017, five months after the judge had demitted office on 26th May 2017. This delay, the appellant contended, was a gross impropriety.

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that the Supreme Court should independently hear the case on merits, disregarding the procedural impropriety.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue before the court was:

• Whether the judgment of the High Court was liable to be set aside due to the delay in releasing the detailed reasoning, which occurred after the judge demitted office.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific case laws or legal provisions in its judgment. The decision was primarily based on the principle articulated by Lord Hewart, that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the delay in releasing the detailed judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Madras was a gross impropriety. The court noted that the operative part of the judgment was pronounced on 17th April 2017, and the detailed judgment was released only on 23rd October 2017, about five months after the judge had demitted office. The Supreme Court observed that the judge had five weeks to release the reasoned judgment before demitting office. The Court emphasized that retaining a case file for five months after demitting office is unacceptable.

“How each authority was viewed by the Court?”

• Lord Hewart’s principle: “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”: The Supreme Court relied on this principle to emphasize the importance of judicial propriety and timely justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the gross impropriety of the delay in releasing the detailed judgment. The court emphasized that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The delay of five months after the judge demitted office was seen as a significant breach of judicial propriety. The court’s reasoning focused on maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that judgments are delivered in a timely and transparent manner.

The Supreme Court’s decision was driven by the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The court found the delay in releasing the detailed judgment, especially after the judge had demitted office, to be a serious breach of judicial propriety. The court emphasized the importance of timely justice and transparency in the judicial process.

The Supreme Court stated, “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.” The Court further added, “What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this Court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision.” Finally, the court clarified, “Needless to add that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy and all issues are left open to be decided by the High Court.”

Key Takeaways

• Judgments must be delivered with detailed reasoning promptly, preferably before the judge demits office.
• Significant delays in releasing reasoned judgments after a judge has left office can lead to the judgment being set aside.
• The principle that “justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done” is paramount in ensuring judicial integrity.
• The Supreme Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open for fresh consideration by the High Court.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras and remitted the cases back to the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that it had not made any adjudication on the merits of the controversy, and all issues were left open to be decided by the High Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a judgment of a High Court can be set aside if the detailed reasoning is released months after the judge demitted office. This ruling reinforces the importance of timely justice and the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the court emphasized the importance of following the existing principles of judicial propriety.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the High Court judgment underscores the critical importance of judicial propriety and the timely delivery of justice. The court’s emphasis on the principle that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done highlights the need for transparency and promptness in the judicial process. The case serves as a reminder to the judiciary about the need to release reasoned judgments promptly, especially before demitting office.