Supreme Court: Names Of Presiding Officer/Members Should Be Specifically Mentioned In Orders When Signed, Including Interim Orders

Before parting with the judgment, we quote with approval para 25 of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The same is extracted below: {Para 17}

25. One more point observed by this Court is that while signing the order sheet and also orders, the names of the Judicial Member as well as Non-judicial Members are not noted below their signatures. This is coming in the way of anyone knowing the names of the members who were present and who were absent. Therefore, only on the basis of signatures, this Court was not able to distinguish as to who was the Non-Judicial Member present on 05.04.2022 and who was the third member who joined in expressing dissenting opinion on 12.04.2022. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to mention the names of the members below their signatures, which would also help the transparency in conduct of the said proceedings and put the members on guard about their roles played in the said proceedings.

17.1. The High Court has noticed an important issue which arises in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings throughout the country. The Presiding Officers or Members of the Board, as the case in hand, or Tribunals do not mention their names when the order is passed. As a result of which it becomes difficult to find out later on, as to who was presiding the Court or Board or Tribunal or was the member at the relevant point of time. There may be many officers with the same name. Insofar as the judicial officers are concerned, unique I.D. numbers have been issued to them.

17.2. We expect that wherever lacking, in all orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the quasi-judicial authorities, the names of the Presiding Officers or the Members be specifically mentioned in the orders when signed, including the interim orders. If there is any identification number given to the officers, the same can also be added.

17.3. The matter does not rest here. In many of the orders the presence of the parties and/or their counsels is not properly recorded. Further, it is not evident as to on whose behalf adjournment has been sought and granted. It is very relevant fact to be considered at different stages of the case and also to find out as to who was the party delaying the matter. At the time of grant of adjournment, it should specifically be mentioned as to the purpose therefor. This may be helpful in imposition of costs also, finally once we shift to the real terms costs.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2411 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3033 of 2024)

Child in Conflict with Law through his Mother Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal, JJ.

Author: Rajesh Bindal, J.

Decided On: 07.05.2024.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0395/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page