The Crown Is Heavy: SC Suggests HC Judges To Avoid Dictating Lengthy Judgements In Court

To enhance judicial efficiency and avoid lengthy courtroom dictations, the Supreme Court recommended on October 21 that High Court judges practice delivering the operative part of judgements or orders when they anticipate that dictating the full judgement will take longer than 20 to 25 minutes.

The Supreme Court bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observed that in recent times, on numerous occasions, the court had suo-moto initiated proceedings after having noticed attitudinal and thought patterns of learned Judges of various high courts across the country which tended to lower the image of the judiciary in general and the high courts in particular. The court also added that shortly a while ago the Court had to set aside a judgement because it had been signed by the learned Judge after demitting office. Thus, it raised concerns over these distressing trends.

The bench expressed their astonishment that even after strong reminders being issued by the Supreme Court from time to time, it had only a minimal effect on the High Courts of the Country and are being persistently ignored. The court stated, ''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.''

It urged High Court judges to exercise caution and care in this matter.

"For a learned Judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation. We sincerely hope that learned 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 case arose from a petition contesting an order issued by a Deputy Collector in Gujarat. This petition was dismissed by the High Court through a brief oral order on March 1 of the previous year. Although it was dated March 1, 2023, a ruling with thorough reasoning was only published and sent to the appellant on April 30, 2024.

In the appeal, the Supreme Court determined that the High Court judge's delay in providing the reasoned order was against the judicial norms and denied the appellant prompt legal remedy.

It reiterated that prompt judgement delivery is quintessential to ensure the judiciary's integrity.

It noted that the High Court judge's jurisdiction over the case ended after the oral dismissal of the case without providing reasons.

''His Lordship ceased to retain jurisdiction over the petition and foreclosed assignment of reasons for the dismissal. Assuming that His Lordship were to express that reasons for the dismissal would follow, still there could be no valid reason to write a detailed reasoned order after lapse of a year having expressed “dismissed” and upload such order on the website.''

To avoid getting the board choked where there are slim chances of hearing remaining cases, the court emphasised that judges should exercise restraint in delivering lengthy judgements or orders in open court. They recommended that only orders or judgements requiring no more than 20 to 25 minutes for dictation be pronounced after the conclusion of arguments to help avoid the accumulation of case files awaiting decisions.

''The necessity to strike a balance, in turn, has led to an innovative approach (many a times followed even by this Court) which, though not strictly in tune with Order XX, has transitioned into a regular practice by passage of time. This contemplates a rough assessment made by a learned Judge of the time to be taken for dictating a judgment after hearing in a matter is concluded and if, in such assessment, it is likely to take more than 20/25 minutes, the learned Judge proceeds to pronounce the operative part together with the outcome while expressing “reasons to/would follow” and then concludes the exercise of pronouncing the final judgment by providing the reasons as soon as possible thereafter. Having regard to the exploding docket of a majority of the high courts, learned Judges consider it wise and prudent to make optimum use of judicial time by not dictating lengthy judgments in court. This practice, no doubt, seeks to serve a salutary purpose.''

The bench reassured their full trust and confidence in the learned Judges of the High courts; however, it suggested that it would be wise for the learned judges to choose from any of the three available options.

• Dictation of the judgment in open court
• Deserving the judgment and pronouncing it on a future day
• Pronouncing the operative part and the outcome, i.e., "dismissed," "allowed,” or “disposed of.”

Ultimately, the court, in regards to the Gujarat High Court case in hand, quoting the words of Lord Hewart, the Lord Chief Justice of England, that said “justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done” held, ''This that would result in revival of the petition of the appellant and it shall stand restored on the file of the High Court. The Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to place the petition before the learned Judge currently having the assignment to hear the same.''

Thus, the appeal was allowed while making it clear that the court has not examined the rival claims on merits.

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

Advocate(s) for Petitioner: Adv. Anushree Prashit Kapadia

Advocate(s) for Respondents: Adv.Deepanwati Piyanka