Back
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
The judgment emphasizes the critical importance of timely and reasoned judicial decisions to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and ensure justice. It highlights that delays in delivering judgments, especially those that are not communicated with reasons, undermine the right of parties to seek effective judicial redress and erode public confidence in the legal system (!) (!) .
The court condemns egregious breaches of judicial discipline, such as delaying the communication of reasons for orders and ante-dating judgments, which can amount to a violation of constitutional rights and procedural fairness (!) (!) (!) (!) . It underscores that the failure to promptly provide reasons for judgments compromises transparency and the right to a fair hearing, and can lead to injustice and prejudice against the parties involved (!) (!) .
The judgment also discusses the importance of judicial discipline, urging judges to exercise restraint and adhere to established norms for pronouncing judgments, including the practice of delivering operative orders immediately and providing detailed reasons subsequently, within a reasonable timeframe (!) (!) .
It recognizes the immense workload faced by judges and advocates for a balanced approach that promotes promptness without compromising the quality and clarity of judgments. The court encourages courts to adopt practices that ensure reasons are communicated as soon as possible after the operative order, to prevent delays that hinder justice (!) .
Furthermore, the judgment stresses the need for judges to maintain professionalism, integrity, and impartiality, especially in the age of social media and increased public scrutiny. It advocates for judges to uphold high standards of ethics and discipline to preserve the dignity of the judiciary (!) (!) .
Finally, the court underscores that errors or mistakes by judges are human, and emphasizes the importance of rectifying procedural lapses transparently and ethically. It advocates for fairness and justice over technicalities, and calls upon the judiciary to act with humility and responsibility to maintain public trust (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the judgment reinforces the principles of promptness, transparency, discipline, and integrity as fundamental to the proper functioning of the judiciary and the delivery of justice.
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. In recent times, on more occasions than one, this Court has suo motu initiated proceedings having noticed attitudinal and thought patterns of learned Judges of various high courts across the country which tended to lower the image of the judiciary in general and the high courts in particular. While some of the proceedings are still pending, one such proceeding has been disposed of recently emphasising the need for learned Judges to exercise restraint while expressing one’s views in open court.
2. Yet again, a fortnight back, this Court set aside a judgment of a high court on the ground that such judgment had been signed by the learned Judge after demitting office.
3. These are distressing trends indeed.
4. As if there is no end to it, the present case unfolds facts which are equally disturbing and meets with our disapproval.
5. However, before we refer to the factual matrix giving rise to this civil appeal, noticing a decision of fairly recent origin of this Court in Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra, (2021) 12 SCC 603 is considered imperative. Relevant excerpts from such decision read as follows:
Judicial decisions must be timely and reasoned to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Reasoned Judgment – Such a practice of pronouncing final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.
Judicial review does not imply personal criticism of lower court judges unless explicitly stated; expunged remarks may cause reputational harm.
(1) Disposal of bail applications – Constitutional Courts can lay down principles governing grant of bail or anticipatory bail – However, Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with discretion of our....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
Judicial officers must maintain integrity and avoid ex-parte communications; delays in judgment delivery undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
(1) A Judicial Officer cannot pronounce concluding portion of his judgment in open court without entire text of judgment being prepared/dictated.(2) Requirement of a second show cause notice relating....
Retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after demitting office is an act of gross impropriety on part of Judge – Supreme Court cannot support such acts of impropriety.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
