SC calls for timely orders, sets 5-day limit on issuing reasons after orders
This timeline would prevent any suspicion from arising in the minds of the losing parties or the public at large
The Supreme Court on Monday underlined the necessity of timely delivery of reasoned judgments, condemning the growing practice of judges delivering the operative part of their decisions without promptly providing the accompanying reasons, and strongly recommending that judges deliver reasoned orders within two days, or five days at most, after issuing the operative part of a judgment.
Labelling delays as detrimental to the judiciary’s integrity and the public’s trust in the legal system, the top court called for timelines stating that although “dealing with lakhs of litigation is no mean task”, it is the judges’ duty “to stand tall and rise to the challenge” with “absolutely no margin for error.”
The top court recommended that if a judge pronounces the operative part stating that reasons would follow in a detailed judgment, the reasoning for the judgment should ideally be made public within two days and, at the latest, within five days. This timeline, according to a bench comprising justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra, would prevent any suspicion from arising in the minds of the losing parties or the public at large.
In a decision that serves both as a warning and a guideline for high court and district judiciary, the apex court emphasised that failing to promptly provide reasons for rulings erodes public confidence in the judicial system and could even lead to questions regarding the integrity of the judiciary.
Lamenting that previous judgments of the top court against delay in delivery of judgments are yet to be complied with by high courts in letter and spirit, the bench regretted that such lapses are a disservice to the institution of the judiciary and also affect the administration of justice.
“For a learned judge to deviate from the laid down standards would be to betray the trust reposed in him by the nation...neglect/omission/refusal to abide by binding precedents augurs ill for the health of the system,” said the bench.
The case in question involved the Gujarat high court, where a reasoned judgment was delivered more than a year after the operative part of the decision had been announced, and allegedly ante-dated to make it appear as though it was issued promptly. The court, after investigating the matter and receiving a report from the high court’s registrar general, confirmed the allegations, finding the delay in issuing the reasons to be substantial. This led the bench to quash the impugned order, stating that such practices bring disrepute to the judicial system. It restored the petition, expressing its dismay over such procedural lapses and underscoring the need for the judiciary to remain committed to its ethical obligations.
The ruling underscored the Supreme Court’s growing concern about the public perception of the judiciary, especially in an era where judicial decisions are subject to widespread scrutiny via social media and news platforms.
“In today’s world...there is wide coverage (of court proceedings) on social media platforms,” noted the bench, warning that judges themselves are often under intense public observation.
The societal expectation of judges, it stressed, is high, adding a judge is expected to be “an epitome of unimpeachable integrity and unwavering principles, a champion of moral excellence, and an embodiment of professionalism.”
While the bench acknowledged the enormous workload borne by high courts across the country, it lamented that deviations such as the one under scrutiny tarnish the judiciary’s reputation.
The judgment also touched on the broader issue of judicial accountability, noting that delays in issuing reasoned judgments contribute to the perception of “justice being delayed,” even if the intentions behind such delays are to expedite other cases. This unintended consequence, the court explained, must be addressed to ensure that justice is seen to be done in every case.
The court provided guidance on delivering judgments, reminding judges of three options for doing so -- dictating judgments in open court, reserving them for later, or pronouncing the operative part with reasons to follow. However, the court strongly recommended that if a judge opts for the third choice -- delivering an outcome without immediate reasons -- they should provide the detailed judgment within two days, or at most five, to maintain transparency and prevent suspicion.
“If the pressure of work is such that...reasons cannot be made available within five days, it would be a better option to reserve the judgment,” suggested the bench, noting that delayed reasoning undermines the public’s perception of justice.