If Judges Pronounce Only Operative Part, Then Reasons For Decision Should Be Given In 2-5 Days : Supreme Court

In an important judgment, the Supreme Court has urged the High Court judges to ensure that if they are pronouncing only the operative part of the judgment by saying that reasons will follow, then they should endeavour to give the reasons within 2-5 days.

The Court observed that if a judge feels that the reasons can't be given within 5 days due to work pressure, then it would be prudent to reserve the judgment.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed :

“However, while it would be prudent to leave it to the learned Judges to pick any one of the three options [(i) dictation of the judgment in open court, (ii) reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or “disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that reasons would follow in a detailed final judgment supporting such outcome], it would be in the interest of justice if any learned Judge, who prefers the third option (supra), makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within 2 (two) days thereof but, in any case, not beyond 5 (five) days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the mind of the party losing the legal battle. If the pressure of work is such that in the assessment of the learned Judge the reasons in support of the final judgment cannot be made available, without fail, in 5 (five) days, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment.”

In this case,  the appellant was informed about the dismissal of the case by the Gujarat High Court in March 2023, but the detailed reasoned judgment was not available until April 2024. The appellant alleged that the Judge had passed the reasoned order more than a year after 1st March, 2023 and ante-dated the same to project that the reasoned order was passed on 1st March, 2023. On the Supreme Court seeking a report from the Registrar General, it was revealed that the reasoned judgment was pronounced only on April 30, 2024.

Saying that the High Court "egregiously breached the law", the Supreme Court directed the High Court judge to recall the initial oral order and place the matter before the Chief Justice of the High Court for consideration by another bench.

"we regret to observe that the learned Judge having realised in April, 2024 of having omitted to assign reasons for dismissal of the petition although His Lordship had pronounced “dismissed” in open court proceedings on 1st March, 2023, could have avoided committing an act of indiscretion, by breaching all norms of ethics, in proceeding to assign reasons more than a year later. In accordance with the highest standards of fairness, propriety and discipline, the need of the hour required the learned Judge to bring the matter back on board once again, recall the verbal order of dismissal and place it before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court for assigning it to some other Bench for fresh consideration."

Distressing trends

The judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta started by referring to certain "attitudinal and thought patterns of learned Judges of various high courts" which have lowered the image of the judiciary. A veiled reference was made to the recent suo motu case taken over the remarks of the Karnataka High Court judge.

Reference was also made to the recent Supreme Court's order which struck down a judgment which was signed by the High Court judge after retirement.

"These are distressing trends indeed," the Court stated.

As regards the facts of the present case, the Court observed that they were "equally disturbing and meets with our disapproval."

Here, the Court examined the live-stream feed to understand what happened on March 1, 2023. It was found that the judge merely said "dismissed" and did not even say reasons would follow.

HCs ignoring SC's binding precedents

The Court also lamented that the High Courts were ignoring the binding precedents.

"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," the Court said.

To err is human, To forgive is divine

While concluding the judgment, the Court recalled the universal truth “to err is human, to forgive is divine” emphasizing the human tendency of committing mistakes and the importance of forgiving a human error.

Given the work pressure of High Court judges, the Supreme Court said that it was persuaded to look at the issue through the glass of "grace and compassion."  

"Conscious that we are of learned Judges of the high courts working overtime to render justice to the litigants by conducting judicial proceedings, at times, by sitting in excess of normal working hours, discharging administrative duties in addition to judicial work, etc, and in the process overlooking health issues and sacrificing all pleasures of social life, we need to look at the issue wearing glasses of grace and compassion....Promoting empathy and understanding by encouraging forgiveness, which is a divine quality transcending human limitation, should be preferred to anything else in the given circumstances, particularly when the learned Judge has not been put on notice and is unable to place His Lordship's version. This approach is considered to be a better option rather than remarking adversely or giving unsolicited advice," the Court said.

Also from the judgment - Avoid Dictating Lengthy Judgments In Court; Pronounce Only Operative Part If Dictation Likely To Exceed 20/25 Minutes: Supreme Court To HC Judges

Case : Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. v. State Of Gujarat & Ors.

 Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 820

Click here to read the judgment