Order Passed On Oral Consent Given By Counsel Can't Be Reviewed On Ground That There Was No Written Consent : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 20) emphasized that all constitutional courts in India accept oral statements made by counsels on behalf of parties, and an order cannot be reviewed solely on the ground that consent was not provided in writing.

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan set aside an order of the Calcutta High Court that allowed a review petition in a service matter based solely on the lack of written consent for an earlier order passed by the High Court.

“All constitutional courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on the footing that there is no consent given in writing. As oral consent of the counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26 April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent”, the Court held.

The matter pertains to the review of an order dated April 26, 2024, issued by the Calcutta High Court in connection with alleged irregularities in the recruitment process of 2009 for the District Primary School Council (DPSC), Malda. The order had been passed with the recorded oral consent of the counsel for the respondents, which included the DPSC, Howrah. The relevant paragraphs of the April 26 order stated that, by consent of all parties, candidates who participated in the recruitment process of 2009 and had filed writ petitions by April 25, 2024, would be entitled to appointments against existing or future vacancies.

Subsequently, a review petition was filed by DPSC, Malda, challenging the April 26 order on the ground that there had been no written consent given by the counsel representing the respondents. The Calcutta High Court, in its order dated September 25, 2024, allowed the review petition and recalled the April 26 order. The High Court stated that since the order was based on consent, which had not been provided in writing, the April 26 order could not stand.

The Supreme Court noted that the Calcutta High Court's September 25 order rested on the premise that written consent had not been given for the April 26 order.

During the hearing, Justice Oka remarked. “We will tell you the danger. All constitutional courts accept oral statements made across the bar. If, on such ground that there is no consent in writing we start recalling the orders, nobody will accept statements across the bar. For every statement we will take the affidavit of the counsel.”

The Court emphasized that the April 26 order explicitly recorded the oral consent of the counsel representing the respondents, including the DPSC. The Supreme Court held that the review petition should not have been allowed on the ground of lack of written consent.

The Supreme Court set aside the September 25 order of the Calcutta High Court, restoring the original order dated April 26, 2024. However, it clarified that any party aggrieved by the April 26 order could challenge it in accordance with the law.

Case no. – C.A. No. 853/2025

Case Title – Rimpa Saha v. District Primary School Council Malda 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 143

Click Here To Read/Download Order