Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar And Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat And Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2024
Decided on : 21-10-2024
Judicial Discipline - Civil Procedure - Article 21, Order XX - The court emphasized the necessity of timely delivery of judgments and the importance of providing reasons for decisions to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and ensure justice.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant challenged a dismissal order from the High Court, which was communicated over a year later without prior notice of reasons, raising concerns about judicial discipline and the timely delivery of justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court egregiously breached legal norms by delaying the communication of reasons for its dismissal, which undermined the appellant's right to seek further judicial review.
Issues: Whether the High Court's delay in providing reasons for its dismissal of the appellant's petition violated principles of judicial discipline and the right to a fair hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a judgment must be promptly delivered with reasons to ensure transparency and uphold the integrity of the judicial process, as delays can infringe upon the rights of the parties involved.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the impugned order is set aside, restoring the appellant's petition for reconsideration.
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:
* * * * *
10. 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. The delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Anil Rai case [(2001) 7 SCC 318] and as stated aforesaid, the problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early and the reasons follow much later.
11. 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 case.
12. The appellant undoubtedly being the aggrieved party and prejudiced by the impugned order is unable to avail of the legal remedy of approaching this Court where reasons can be scrutinised. It really amounts to defeating the rights of the appellant to challenge the impugned order on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.
13. We are constrained to pen down a more detailed order and refer to the earlier view on account of the fact that recently a number of such orders have come to our notice and we thought it is time to send a reminder to the High Courts.”
6. We are surprised, not a little, that the strong reminders issued by this Court from time to time have had little effect on the high courts in the country and that decisions, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, are being persistently ignored. 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 learned Judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation. We sincerely hope that learned 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 off
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.
The signed and uploaded order is the final operative judgment; draft dictation to court-master is subject to permissible corrections before signing, with only material changes requiring rehearing (36....
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
