Read Time: 15 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on October 21, 2024 lamented the practice by the High Court judges of placing in public domain the reasons of their judgments much too late. Court emphasized that such orders should ideally be delivered within two days, and no later than five days, to avoid raising doubts in the minds of losing parties.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra underscored that since all members of the judiciary are committed to upholding the dignity of their institutions, judges must be conscious of how their actions impact public perception.

"Dealing with lakhs of litigation is no mean task, but at the same time we must realise that instances do emerge leaving absolutely no margin for error. It is our duty as judges to stand tall and rise to the challenge," the bench said.

The court said it would be prudent to leave it to the judges to pick any one of the three options: (i) dictation of the judgment in open court, (ii) reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome.

It would be in the interest of justice if any judge, who prefers the third option, makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within two days thereof but, in any case, not beyond five days, the court said.

"It cannot be gainsaid that in today’s world, particularly when more and more people are showing interest in court proceedings and there is wide coverage thereof on social media platforms, the presiding officers of courts are equally at the centre of attention as the controversy that is involved and the manner of its resolution. The society expects every judge of a high court, so to say, to be a model of rectitude, an epitome of unimpeachable integrity and unwavering principles, a champion of moral excellence, and an embodiment of professionalism, who can consistently deliver work of high-quality guaranteeing justice," the bench said.

Court cited Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra (2021) where it was held that held that a gap of nine months between the delivery of an order's operative portion and the disclosure of its reasons is unacceptable.

"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 judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation," the bench said.

Dealing with a civil appeal arising from a judgment and order dated March 1, 2023, the apex court found that the Gujarat High Court had egregiously breached the law, in pronouncing the reasoned order of the order more than a year later.

"Instances such as the one under consideration, which we view as nothing more than an aberration, bring disrepute to the judicial system of the country and show the entire judiciary in poor light," the bench said.

The court sought a report from the High Court's Registrar General to verify whether the appellant's claim that the reasoned order dated March 1, 2023, was communicated to him for the first time on April 30, 2024, was accurate.

"A report has since been filed and on perusal, we have found the allegation of the appellant to be substantially correct," the bench said.

The bench observed, based on the virtual proceedings of the judge's court, that it was evidently clear the judge did not even indicate that "reasons would follow" after dismissing the petition. The bench further remarked that by failing to express this, the judge effectively rendered the court functus officio (having exhausted its authority).

"We are inclined to the view that the judge not having expressed that reasons for the dismissal would follow, His Lordship ceased to retain jurisdiction over the petition and foreclosed assignment of reasons for the dismissal," the bench said.

There could be no valid reason to write a detailed reasoned order after lapse of a year having expressed “dismissed” and upload such order on the website, the bench emphasised.

The court felt the duty and responsibility of assigning reasons for dismissal of the petition completely escaped the mind of the judge. 

Observing that it is a feature of human fallibility that people are prone to commit mistakes, the bench said, "We regret to observe that the 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".

However, the bench opined in accordance with the highest standards of fairness, propriety and discipline, the need of the hour required the judge to bring the matter back on board once again, recall the verbal order of dismissal and place it before the Chief Justice of the High Court for assigning it to some other bench for fresh consideration.

The court pointed out that Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ordains that a judgment can be pronounced, in an open court, either at once or as soon thereafter as may be practicable on a future day. 

The bench said that vertically the Supreme Court is placed over the High Courts; but if the Supreme Court and the High Courts were thought of as brothers, "we as judges of the apex court in the country remain as the elder brother only to the extent of exercise of appellate jurisdiction".

"Promoting empathy and understanding by encouraging forgiveness, which is a divine quality transcending human limitation, should be preferred to anything else in the given circumstances, particularly when the judge has not been put on notice and is unable to place His Lordship’s version. This approach is considered to be a better option rather than remarking adversely or giving unsolicited advice," the bench said.

Having regard to the famous words of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England in R vs Sussex JJ, ex p McCarthy (1924) that “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done”, meaning thereby that the outcome of proceedings should be visibly just, the bench held that the impugned order bearing the date of March 1, 2023 had to be set aside.

"We sincerely hope that 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," the bench said.

Court revived the petition to the file of the High Court for a fresh consideration before a judge having the assignment to hear such cases.

It clarified that it had not heard rival claims on merits in the matter.