Summary
A High Court Judge dismissed a petition in open court with the single word 'dismissed', without saying reasons would follow, and then dictated a reasoned 'oral order' more than a year later bearing the original date. The Supreme Court set that order aside and restored the petition, holding that the Judge had become functus officio. It also advised that a Judge who pronounces only the outcome with 'reasons to follow' should publish the reasons preferably within two days and never beyond five, failing which the judgment should be reserved.
Issues
- Whether a High Court Judge who pronounced 'dismissed' in open court without stating that reasons would follow could later assign reasons, and whether a reasoned order dictated more than a year later but dated on the day of hearing could stand.
- What practice should govern pronouncement of the operative part of a judgment with reasons to follow.
Provisions considered
- Order XX (Rule 1), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The Court noted that Order XX requires judgment to be pronounced in open court at once or as soon as practicable on a future day. Pronouncing the outcome with reasons to follow has become an accepted practice though not strictly in line with Order XX; where the order would change the status of the parties or the subject matter, the Order XX course should be followed. (¶ 19)
- Article 141, Constitution of IndiaThe Court deprecated High Courts' persistent disregard of its binding decisions, including Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anil Rai on prompt delivery of reasons. (¶¶ 5, 6)
Held
- On the Registrar General's report and the recording of the hearing, the Court found that the Judge pronounced only 'dismissed' on 1 March 2023 and dictated the reasoned 'oral order' on 12 April 2024, which was uploaded on 30 April 2024. The appellant's counsel, however, knew of the dismissal moments after the hearing, and the appellant had not been entirely candid about this. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13)
- Having pronounced the dismissal without saying that reasons would follow, the Judge became functus officio and could not later assign reasons. Under Vinod Kumar Singh v BHU, an order pronounced in open court may be altered before signing only exceptionally, judicially and after notice to the parties, which did not happen here. (¶ 14)
- Even if reasons had been reserved, there was no valid justification for writing a reasoned order a year after pronouncing 'dismissed'. On realising the omission, the proper course was to list the matter again, recall the oral dismissal and place it before the Chief Justice for assignment to another Bench. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- For future guidance, a Judge may dictate the judgment in open court, reserve it, or pronounce the operative part with reasons to follow. Under the third option, reasons should be made public preferably within 2 days and in no case beyond 5 days; if that is not possible the judgment should be reserved; and where the order would change the status of the parties or the subject matter, the Order XX course is advisable. (¶ 19)
- Since the Judge had not been put on notice and could not give his version, the Court chose not to make adverse remarks. It nonetheless set aside the impugned order on the principle that justice must be seen to be done, despite the appellant's own lack of candour. (¶¶ 16, 20, 21, 23)
Result
Appeal allowed; impugned order bearing the date 01.03.2023 set aside; Article 227 petition restored to the High Court's file, with the Chief Justice requested to place it before the Judge currently holding the assignment. It is to be decided uninfluenced by the set-aside order; merits not examined.