Does Oral Pronouncement Of Judgement Amount To Case Disposal?: Supreme Court To Decide

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (December 18) questioned the legal implications of oral pronouncement of judgments in court and whether such oral pronouncement itself amounts to a final disposal of the case.

“Whether such oral pronouncement that petition is allowed, whether it will really amount to disposal or not, that issue we have doubt whether you will be able to argue that, but it has to be gone into”, Justice Oka said to Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who said that he will address the Court on this issue.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Manmohan raised this question while hearing the plea of former Director General of Police (DGP) Jaffar Sait, challenging the Madras High Court's decision to rehear his petition for quashing a money laundering case, despite having earlier allowed the petition.

Luthra argued that the pronouncement by the Court constituted a judgment, while Justice Oka said that the Court will consider that issue.

The Madras High Court had initially quashed the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and proceedings against Sait on August 21, 2024, based on the quashing of the predicate offence. However, the High Court subsequently recalled the order suo moto and reheard the case, reserving its judgment. Thereafter, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court proceedings and sought a report from the Registry.

In September, the Supreme Court called the High Court's decision to rehear the case after allowing the petition "absolutely wrong." On October 4, the Supreme Court stated that it would lay down the law on whether a High Court could recall an order pronounced in court and rehear the case.

Today, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Sait, submitted that the High Court's action was suo moto, as neither Sait nor the ED had sought the recall.

Justice Oka observed that the peculiar situation in the present case meant that Sait's petition was allowed by the HC without reasons, rendering the order unsustainable. Similarly, the subsequent recall of the order and rehearing of the case could not be sustained. “So, we are back to square one,” he remarked.

However, he reiterated that the manner of recall in the present case was not sustainable, and emphasised that the Court will have to lay down the law on the legal implication of pronouncement of a judgment. “This is something we will not tolerate and we have to write a judgement on this. But the question is whether we should go into the merits”, he said. On the merits of the case, he suggested that the Court give Sait some interim relief and the High Court decides Sait's petition on merits.

Justice observed, “If the order is to be recalled, the parties have to be heard. That order allowing the petition must remain, and the parties have to be heard.”

The Court referred to the recent judgment which laid down guidelines that if a court pronounces only the operative part of an order, the detailed judgment should be uploaded within 2 to 5 days.

Justice Oka pointed out that judges may not adhere to this timeline in cases involving bail, such as those under the NDPS or UAPA laws, where judges are required to provide reasons for granting bail. He noted that, due to the overwhelming number of bail applications, judges sometimes pronounce the operative part of the order so that the accused can be released immediately. However, the written reasons might take longer than the 2 to 5-day time limit for uploading.

Justice Oka reiterated that the Court would need to establish whether judges can recall an order once pronounced. He distinguished between cases where reasons are provided separately for a decision and cases such as the present case, where only the oral pronouncement is made and even the operative part is not signed by the judges.

“This law will have to be laid down. Possibly one view can be that the judges can recall but parties will have to be heard before the order is recalled. We have to distinguish between two situations. One is the example of bail order that we gave. What is normally done is that saying for reasons to be separately recorded, separate order recording operative part is released then it is signed by the judge so it becomes an order. Obviously nobody can modify that order. But when there is an oral pronouncement that the petition is allowed, even that operative part is not signed by the judges.”

Finally, Justice Oka raised a practical concern regarding the cost of litigation. He noted that while Sait could afford to engage a senior advocate like Luthra, smaller litigants would face significant financial burdens if an order is recalled and they are required to engage lawyers to argue the same matter all over again.

The Court allowed both parties to file additional compilations of decisions and brief submissions. The next hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, January 8, 2025, with the interim order remaining in effect until further orders.

Case no. – Diary No. 39548/2024

Case Title – MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement