Supreme Court says reasons for final judgment must be made public within 5 days, calls delays 'aberrations'

Three options exist for the judge: dictation of the judgment in open court, reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or 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 order...

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has deplored the long delay by the High Court judges in releasing reasoned orders, saying it should be done preferably within two days but in any case not beyond five days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the mind of party losing the legal battle.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra set aside a Gujarat High Court judge's order which was released on April 30, 2024 after having been pronounced in open court on March 1, 2023.

Acting on a plea by Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and others, the bench said the judge "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 its judgment on October 21, the court said all judges must be mindful of the impact of their actions on the society at large.

"Dealing with lakhs of litigation is no mean task, but at the same time we must realise that instances do emerge leaving absolutely no margin for error. It is our duty as judges to stand tall and rise to the challenge," the bench said.

The court judges, after hearing a matter, may pick any one of the three options: dictation of the judgment in open court, reserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day, or 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 judge, who prefers the third option, makes the reasons available in the public domain, preferably within two days thereof but, in any case, not beyond five days," the court directed.

The court said in today’s world, particularly when more and more people are showing interest in court proceedings and there is wide coverage on social media platforms, the presiding officers of courts are equally at the centre of attention as the controversy that is involved and the manner of its resolution.

"The society expects every judge of a high court, so to say, to be a model of rectitude, an epitome of unimpeachable integrity and unwavering principles, a champion of moral excellence, and an embodiment of professionalism, who can consistently deliver work of high-quality guaranteeing justice," the bench said.

Referring to previous judgments, the bench said, "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. For a judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation."

Having called for a report from the HC's Registrar General and perused the record of proceedings available on the virtual platform, the bench noted the allegations made by the petitioners were substantially correct. The court felt instances such as the present one is "nothing more than an aberration, which bring disrepute to the judicial system of the country and show the entire judiciary in poor light."

The court found no valid reason to write a detailed reasoned order after lapse of a year having expressed “dismissed” and upload such order on the website.

The court remanded the matter to the High Court for consideration afresh.

"We sincerely hope that judges of the high courts while being careful and cautious will remain committed to the service of the litigants, for whom only they exist, as well as the oath of office that they have taken so that, in future, we are not presented with another case of similar nature to deal with," the bench said.