Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with a civil appeal arising from a Special Leave Petition against an order of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court dated 21.01.2020. The High Court had dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants, Balaji Baliram Mupade and another, against the State of Maharashtra and others, but only pronounced the operative portion of the order, stating that reasons would be recorded separately. The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition in March 2020. When the matter was listed before the Supreme Court on 07.10.2020, counsel for the appellants stated that the reasons for the order had still not been uploaded. The Supreme Court called for a report from the Registrar of the High Court, which revealed that the operative order was pronounced on 21.01.2020, but the reasons were received by the Registry only on 09.10.2020—after a gap of almost nine months—and were uploaded the same day. The Supreme Court noted that this practice of pronouncing orders without reasoned judgments has been repeatedly deprecated by the Court, citing earlier decisions such as State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi (1984) 1 SCC 596, Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, and others. The Court observed that such delay defeats the right of the aggrieved party to seek judicial redressal and also prevents the successful party from enjoying the fruits of litigation. The Court held that the delay in providing reasons violates Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits, uninfluenced by the belated reasons, before a different Bench. The interim order that was operating in favor of the appellants since 15.05.2013 was directed to continue. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and a copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to all High Courts.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Judicial Discipline - Timely Delivery of Reasoned Judgments - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of High Courts pronouncing only the operative portion of an order without a reasoned judgment, causing prejudice to the aggrieved party's right to appeal. The Court held that such delay violates Article 21 and set aside the impugned order, remitting the matter for fresh consideration (Paras 1-14). B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Setting Aside Order for Lack of Reasons - The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 21.01.2020 which dismissed the writ petition with reasons provided only after nine months. The matter was remitted to the High Court for fresh hearing on merits, uninfluenced by the belated reasons, before a different Bench (Paras 14-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court's practice of pronouncing only the operative order without a reasoned judgment for nine months is sustainable and whether it violates the appellant's right to seek judicial redressal.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Bombay High Court dated 21.01.2020, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration on merits, uninfluenced by the belated reasons, before a different Bench. The interim order dated 15.05.2013 in favor of the appellant was directed to continue. Parties to bear their own costs. A copy of the order to be circulated to all High Courts.
Law Points
- Judicial discipline
- timely delivery of reasoned judgments
- operative order without reasons
- violation of Article 21
- right to appeal
- remit for fresh hearing
