Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Due to Delayed Reasons: Balaji Baliram Mupade vs. State of Maharashtra (29 October 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 October 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 767
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a court’s order be valid if the reasons for it are provided months after the order itself? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical issue of judicial procedure in the case of *Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.* The Court emphasized the importance of timely delivery of judgments, particularly the reasons behind the orders, to ensure that aggrieved parties have the opportunity to seek further legal recourse. This case highlights the necessity of judicial discipline and the right to a fair and timely legal process. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. On 21 January 2020, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and rejected the prayer for continuation of the interim order, issuing only an operative order without providing the reasons. The petitioners, being aggrieved by this order, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court in March 2020. However, the reasons for the High Court’s order were not made available until 9 October 2020, almost nine months after the operative order was passed. This delay in providing the reasons prevented the petitioners from effectively challenging the High Court’s decision. The Supreme Court noted that the delay in providing reasons for the order was a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners initially filed a writ petition before the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court dismissed the petition on 21 January 2020, issuing only an operative order without providing any reasons. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in March 2020. When the matter was listed before the Supreme Court on 7 October 2020, the petitioners’ counsel stated that the reasons for the High Court’s order had not been uploaded. The Supreme Court then sought a report from the Registrar of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, which confirmed that the reasons were received by the Registry only on 9 October 2020, after a delay of almost nine months. The Supreme Court, taking serious note of this delay, issued notice and stayed the operation of the High Court’s order. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to several of its previous judgments to emphasize the importance of timely delivery of judgments. The Court cited the Constitution Bench judgment in *State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi – 1984 (1) SCC 596*, which highlighted the difficulties caused by High Courts pronouncing final orders without reasoned judgments. The Court also referred to *Anil Rai v. State of Bihar – 2001 (7) SCC 318*, where guidelines were provided for the pronouncement of judgments, stating that judgments should normally be delivered within two months of the conclusion of arguments. The Court also cited *Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80-82]*, *Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2008) 7 SCC 96 paras 5-10]* and *Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.- AIR 2017 SC 310* to reiterate the principle of prompt delivery of judgments. The Court observed that the delay in delivery of judgments has been considered a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court emphasized that the delay in providing reasons for an order deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal.

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellant:

• The appellant argued that the High Court had passed an operative order on 21 January 2020, dismissing their writ petition, but the reasons for the dismissal were not provided until 9 October 2020.
• This delay of almost nine months in providing the reasons prevented the appellant from effectively challenging the High Court’s order before the Supreme Court.
• The appellant contended that the delay violated their right to seek legal remedy and amounted to a denial of justice.
• The appellant relied on previous Supreme Court judgments that emphasized the need for prompt delivery of judgments, including the reasons for the orders.

Arguments of the Respondent:

• The respondent, the State of Maharashtra, did not present any specific arguments to justify the delay in providing the reasons for the High Court’s order.
• The respondent did not dispute the fact that the reasons were provided almost nine months after the operative order.
• The respondent did not contest the appellant’s claim that the delay had prejudiced their right to seek legal remedy.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in the traditional sense. However, the core issue before the Court was:

1. Whether the High Court order should be set aside due to the inordinate delay in providing the reasons for the order, thereby preventing the aggrieved party from seeking further judicial redressal.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the following authorities:

• State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [1984 (1) SCC 596]: *The Court used this case to highlight the difficulties caused by High Courts pronouncing final orders without reasoned judgments, emphasizing the need for reasoned judgments.*
• Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001 (7) SCC 318]: *The Court used this case to emphasize the need for timely delivery of judgments and the guidelines provided for pronouncement of judgments, specifically noting that judgments should normally be delivered within two months of the conclusion of arguments.*
• Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80-82], Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2008) 7 SCC 96 paras 5-10], and Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [AIR 2017 SC 310]: *The Court cited these cases to reiterate the principle of prompt delivery of judgments, reinforcing the importance of timely justice.*

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold judicial discipline and ensure that aggrieved parties have the opportunity to seek legal recourse. The Court was concerned about the significant delay of nine months between the operative order and the reasons, which effectively prevented the appellant from challenging the High Court’s decision. The Court emphasized that such delays undermine the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair and timely legal process. The Court also reiterated the importance of prompt delivery of judgments as highlighted in previous Supreme Court judgments.

The Court considered that the delay in providing reasons for the order was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the delay had prejudiced the appellant’s right to seek legal remedy. The Court also considered the previous judgments of the Supreme Court which emphasized the need for prompt delivery of judgments. The Court rejected any alternative interpretation that would justify the delay and held that the delay was unacceptable and violated judicial discipline. The Court’s decision was based on the need to ensure that aggrieved parties have the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal.

The Supreme Court held:

“We must note with regret that the counsel extended through various judicial pronouncements including the one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored, more importantly where oral orders are pronounced. In case of such orders, it is expected that they are either dictated in the Court or at least must follow immediately thereafter, to facilitate any aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher Court.”

“It cannot be countenanced that between the date of the operative portion of the order and the reasons disclosed, there is a hiatus period of nine months! This is much more than what has been observed to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved judgment as per Anil Rai’s case (supra).”

“We have little option in the aforesaid facts of the case but to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the High Court on merits, uninfluenced by the reasons which have been finally disclosed in respect of the impugned order.”

Key Takeaways

• Judgments must be delivered promptly, and the reasons for the order should be provided without unreasonable delay.
• A significant delay in providing reasons for a court order can be grounds for setting aside the order.
• The right to seek legal remedy is a fundamental aspect of justice, and delays that hinder this right are unacceptable.
• High Courts are expected to adhere to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court regarding the pronouncement of judgments.
• This judgment serves as a reminder to all courts about the importance of judicial discipline and timely justice.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the matter be remitted back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits, uninfluenced by the reasons that were finally disclosed in respect of the impugned order. The Court also directed that the matter be taken up by a bench not consisting of the members who constituted the bench earlier. The interim order which was operating in favor of the appellant would continue to enure for the benefit of the appellant. The Court also directed that a copy of the order be circulated to all High Courts.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a significant delay in providing the reasons for a court order is a violation of judicial discipline and the principles of natural justice. This case reinforces the importance of timely justice and the right to seek legal remedy. It also serves as a reminder to High Courts to adhere to the guidelines provided by the Supreme Court regarding the pronouncement of judgments. This judgment does not change the previous position of law, but it reiterates the existing legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in *Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.* emphasizes the critical need for timely delivery of judgments and the reasons behind them. The Court set aside the High Court’s order due to a nine-month delay in providing the reasons, highlighting that such delays undermine the principles of natural justice and the right to legal recourse. This case serves as a vital reminder to all courts about the importance of judicial discipline and the need to ensure that justice is not only done but also seen to be done promptly.