Case Title:
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat
Date of Order:
21st October 2024
Bench:
Justice Dipankar Datta And Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Subject:
In dismissing the judgment of the Gujarat High Court three years old as being ex post facto in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court criticized judicial impropriety arising out of a year long delay in disposing of the written judgment. Such delay was held to be violative of the right to speedy justice under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Important Provisions
Article 227: Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, the High Court may--
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and
(c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be kept by the officers of any such courts.
(3) The High Court may also settle tables of fees to be allowed to the sheriff and all clerks and officers of such courts and to attorneys, advocates and pleaders practising therein:
Provided that any rules made, forms prescribed or tables settled under clause (2) or clause (3) shall not be inconsistent with the provision or any law for the time being in force, and shall require the previous approval of the Governor.
(4) Nothing in this article shall be deemed to confer on a High Court powers of superintendence over any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the Armed Forces.
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty
No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Introduction:
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 11000 of 2024, decided by the Supreme Court of India, presents important concerns of judicial propriety. At its core is a question of delayed judgment and retroactive declaration by the Gujarat High Court of the difference in time between the oral dismissal of the appellants' petition and the writing judgment over a period of more than one year. However, the same judgment which has the potential to offer effective appealable remedies, in the submissions of the appellants, vitiates the legal propriety that would have been served by backdating the judgment and the prompt provision of written reasons.
This case suggests that judicial discipline, openness in the selection process, and time-bound delivery of judgments are the hallmarks that maintain faith among litigants towards the administration of justice. The paper is confined to the factual background, contentions of the parties involved, legal reasoning of the court, and the ultimate conclusion drawn by the Supreme Court in settling the issue.
Facts:
This appeal was filed by the appellants, Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and others, against and under section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and R/Special Civil Application No. 10912 of 2015, where the appellants challenged the order dated 1st March 2023, passed by the Gujarat High Court.
The appellants had moved the special civil application under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution challenging an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Kamrej, Surat District, whereby the said order confirmed the previous order made by the Mamlatdar. They contended that the decisions of allotment made by those authorities were erroneous and prayed for relief before the High Court.
The application was to be submitted before the High Court in March of 2023. The High Court orally dismissed the petition. Appellants were also present in court while the petition was being orally dismissed. Although they knew that their petition was being orally dismissed, no written order or reasons were given on that day when the petition was orally dismissed.
Thereafter, it was expected that a reasoned judgment would follow shortly, whereby the underlying reasons of the High Court decision would be understood, and one could accordingly consider one's legal options and whether to appeal. Yet no judgment was uploaded, nor was it available in the public domain, for more than a year.
Appellants received a soft copy of the judgment dated 1st March 2023 only on 30th April 2024. The plea of the appellants is that this judgment was backdated, and the reasonings as to why the appeal had been dismissed were dictated only in the month of April 2024.
The said chain of events brought the appellants before this Court to assail the conduct of the Gujarat High Court in passing a belated judgment and pronounce an order backdated thereunder, claiming the said irregularity vitiated their rights to fair judicial procedures.
Contentions of the Petitioners:
The petitioners' attorney has presented numerous major points before the Supreme Court in the appeal. Their primary contention has been that the undue delay in pronouncing the reasoned judgment along with the retrospective dating of the judgment amounts to a serious breach of judicial propriety.
The resulting delays and inconsistencies meant they were denied the right to speedy justice, an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which provides for a right to life and personal liberty, including access to a fair judicial process.
The appellants had raised a plea that for more than a year, no judgment on reasoned writing was given, grossly prejudicing the appellants' ability to access appellate remedies. That is, without the indicated reasons for dismissal, the appellants were forced to guess what the grounds were, preventing them from properly challenging the High Court's decision in a higher venue.
They complained that what allegedly constituted a mere delay in giving out the written judgment had the effect of depriving the appellants of the opportunity within the limitations period to appeal the judgment and thus infringed on their procedural rights.
More importantly, the appellants referred to several landmark judgments, such as Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar and Vinod Kumar Singh vs. Banaras Hindu University, wherein the appeal of urgency would be required to support their argument that the judiciary needs to act in time with the judgments delivered.
Decisions such as these The Supreme Court had previously determined that the delay in the delivery of judgements would constitute a denial of a litigant's rights and may also serve as a basis for the setting aside of the judgement. The appellants requested that the Supreme Court invalidate the Gujarat High Court's judgement on the basis of procedural irregularity and reopen their petition for consideration.
In respect of the aforesaid issues, the appellants further presented that the judgment was retated back to 1st March 2023 when it was actually dictated only in April 2024, which contravened the principles of judicial discipline and transparency. Such an act gave an impression of judicial misconduct and, thus, undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The respondents while responding, submitted that the High Court had read out the order dismissing the very petition dated 1st March 2023 in the presence of appellants and their counsel. Their submission was that the appellants were fully conversant with the dismissal, and they chose not to act within time thereby making it their own mistake. More importantly, the respondents contended that the order of the High Court was a valid dismissal of the petition, thus delay in giving the written judgment does not alter the outcome of the case at bench.
While admitting that the judgment took longer than expected before the reasoned judgment was delivered, respondents submitted that such delays, regrettable as they were, did not put the appellants in a position to claim grounds to overturn the judgment itself.
They further submitted that the appellants sought to exploit the delay in delivering judgment to have the case reopened, whereas the substantive merits of the case had already been addressed by the High Court in the verbal pronouncement.
Further arguing, respondents argued that this claim on the part of the appellants that they have been prejudiced by the delay judgment is hollow as the order of dismissal was transmitted to them through the return post in March 2023.
Appellants could have proceeded on this dismissal and filed appropriate further application for legal redress much earlier even without the availability of written reasons on the date of the notice.
Court's Analysis:
As the bench led by Hon'ble Justice Dipankar Datta had conducted a comprehensive scrutiny of the timeline and the involved legal issues arising from the belated grant of the written judgment. Such delay of more than a year to pronounce the reasoned judgment remains a question of great concern on the part of the court as such delays run contrary to the foundations of the judicial efficacy.
Referring to precedents that had emerged in Anil Rai v State of Bihar and Balaji Baliram Mupade v State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reminded itself of the well-established principle that delayed judgments defeat the right to speedy justice, which is one of the cornerstones of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Court noted that when the judge is taking an abnormally long time to pronounce a reasoned judgment after he has verbally pronounced the decision, it brings about an uncertainty which unjust to the parties involved.
The Court viewed the video recording of the proceedings in the High Court of 1st March 2023 and had further held that the said recording served to confirm that the High Court judge had orally dismissed the petition.
Importantly, the court further was of the view that the writing of the judgment over one year after date and then backdating it to the month of March 2023 had undermined the integrity of whole judicial procedure.
The Supreme Court invoked Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University and held that delay in judgment delivery was violation of the right to fair hearing of a litigant. It again emphasized the fact that such delays could be grievous prejudice against the litigants, particularly where the rights of the litigants to file an appeal within the limitation period are usually affected by such judgments.
In dealing with the issue of retrospective dating of the judgment, the High Court was procedurally wrong. The High Court judge had denied the principles of judicial transparency by backdating the judgment to 1st March 2023 where the reasons were merely dictated in April 2024. Moreover, it goes to show that the judiciary should ensure it does nothing that would appear to have created an impression of insincerity, even worse, misconduct while deciding upon the case, since for public confidence in the judicial system to stand paramount.
This means that the judiciary must avoid any activity that may be perceived to have created an impression of impropriety or even worse, misconduct for public confidence in the judicial system stands paramount.
Conclusion:
Order allowing the appeal and setting aside judgment dated 1st March 2023 of the High Court of Gujarat; the Supreme Court restored the appellants' petition directing that the case be reassigned for fresh consideration by noticing in particular with dissatisfaction that judgment was not delivered much earlier by the High Court nor was the date on which it was recorded. The court again reiterates that such actions may dent public faith in the judiciary and infirm the right of litigants to get justice in time as is envisaged under Article 21.
This judgment is also a reminder to the judiciary to be on their toes regarding being time-bound, transparent, and disciplined in delivering justice. The Court decision reaffirms that such delays in delivering judgments once mixed with procedural irregularities like backdating, result in violations of substantive rights and therefore need to be avoided at all costs.
