The report was submitted by the Registrar
(Judicial) stating that the order was pronounced on
21.01.2020 being only the operative portion, and the
reasons were received by the Registry only on 09.10.2020
after almost nine months. It was uploaded on the same
date.
9. On the aforesaid short ground, without even looking
at any other aspect, we issued notice returnable for
today and stayed the operation of the impugned order.
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’s case (supra) 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’s case (supra).
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL N O.3564/2020
BALAJI BALIRAM MUPADE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Author: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Dated: OCTOBER 29, 2020.
Leave granted.
1. Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of
judgments – an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court.
The problem is compounded where the result is known but not
the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the
opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next
tier of judicial scrutiny.
2. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in the
year 1983 in the State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh
Talwandi - 1984 (1) SCC 596 drew the attention of the High
Courts to the serious difficulties which were caused on
account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by
several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders
without a reasoned judgment. The relevant paragraph is
reproduced as under:
“30. We would like to take this opportunity to
point out that serious difficulties arise on
account of the practice increasingly adopted
by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final
order without a reasoned judgment. It is
desirable that the final order which the High
Court intends to pass should not be announced
until a reasoned judgment is ready for
pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a
final order without a reasoned judgment is
announced by the High Court that a house shall
be demolished, or that the custody of a child
shall be handed over to one parent as against
the other, or that a person accused of a
serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute
is unconstitutional or, as in the instant
case, that a detenu be released from
detention. If the object of passing such
orders is to ensure speedy compliance with
them, that object is more often defeated by
the aggrieved party filing a special Leave
Petition in this Court against the order
passed by the High Court. That places this
Court in a predicament because, without the
benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it
is difficult for this Court to allow the bare
order to be implemented. The result
inevitably is that the operation of the order
passed by the High Court has to be stayed
pending delivery of the reasoned judgment.”
3. Further, much later but still almost two decades
ago, this Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar - 2001 (7)
SCC 318 deemed it appropriate to provide some guidelines
regarding the pronouncement of judgments, expecting them
to be followed by all concerned under the mandate of
this Court. It is not necessary to reproduce the
directions except to state that normally the judgment is
expected within two months of the conclusion of the
arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the
parties can file an application in the High Court with
prayer for early judgment. If, for any reason, no
judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the
parties is entitled to move an application before the
then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to
re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh
arguments.
4. The aforementioned principle has been forcefully
restated by this Court on several occasions including in
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 most recently
in Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh &
Anr.- AIR 2017 SC 310.
5. The facts of the present case speak for themselves.
The Special Leave Petition was filed against the
impugned order dated 21.01.2020 which read as under:
“OPERATIVE ORDER”
1. For the reasons separately recorded, the
present writ petition is dismissed.
2. The prayer for continuation of interim order
is rejected.
3. Authenticated copy of this order be supplied
to learned Asstt.Govt.Pleader. In turn,
learned Asstt.Govt.Pleader is directed to
communicate the same to the Returning Officer
forthwith.”
6. The Special Leave Petition was filed in March, 2020
and when it was listed before this Court on 07.10.2020,
counsel for the petitioner categorically stated that a
copy of the reasons for the order dated 21.01.2020 had
still not been uploaded till the morning of that day.
7. We thus called upon the Registrar of the Aurangabad
Bench of the Bombay High Court to verify the aforesaid
fact and communicate to this Court forthwith as to why
the order had not been uploaded. We also restrained any
coercive action in pursuance of the impugned order as we
were unable to appreciate the controversy in the absence
of any reasons.
8. The report was submitted by the Registrar
(Judicial) stating that the order was pronounced on
21.01.2020 being only the operative portion, and the
reasons were received by the Registry only on 09.10.2020
after almost nine months. It was uploaded on the same
date.
9. On the aforesaid short ground, without even looking
at any other aspect, we issued notice returnable for
today and stayed the operation of the impugned order.
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’s case (supra) 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’s case (supra).
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 scrutinized. 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.
14. 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.
15. Needless to say, the matter would be taken up by a
Bench not consisting of the Members who constituted the
Bench earlier.
16. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms
leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
17. Since the matter has to be re-heard, the interim
order which was operating in favour of the appellant in
terms of the order dated 15.05.2013 of the High Court
would continue to enure for the benefit of the
appellant.
18. A copy of this order be circulated to all High
Courts.
…………………………………………….J
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL]
…………………………………………….J
[HRISHIKESH ROY]
NEW DELHI;
OCTOBER 29, 2020.
No comments:
Post a Comment