High Courts ignoring our binding orders: Supreme Court laments

The Supreme Court on Monday lamented that its binding orders and directions were being ignored by High Courts [Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and ors v State of Gujarat and ors].

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra made the observation after noting that despite repeated exhortations by the top court that orders/ judgments should be made available by all courts on their websites in a timely manner, the Gujarat High Court had uploaded an order in a case a year after it had disposed of the case in open court.

The apex court warned against High Courts ignoring binding precedents despite reminders.

"We are surprised, not a little, that the strong reminders issued by this Court from time to time have had little effect on the High Courts in the country and that decisions, binding under Article 141 of the Constitution, are being persistently ignored. 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," the top court said.

It asked High Court judges to be careful and cautious in this regard.

"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 observations were made while considering an appeal against the Gujarat High Court verdict that was uploaded on the High Court website after a year's delay.

The matter arose out of a plea challenging an order in a civil case by a Deputy Collector in Gujarat, which was dismissed by the High Court by a brief oral order on March 1 last year.

However, an order with detailed reasons was uploaded and communicated to the appellant only on April 30, 2024 though it was dated March 1, 2023.

The Supreme Court in appeal found that the delay by High Court judge in making the reasoned order available, violated judicial norms and deprived the appellant of timely legal recourse.

It emphasised that prompt judgment delivery is essential to ensure judiciary's integrity.

The Court also examined the High Court Registrar General's report in the matter as well as the virtual proceedings of the case.

It observed that the High Court judge's jurisdiction over the case ceased after orally dismissing the case without 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."

Informing the appellant of the reasoned verdict is little consolation, the apex court said.

The Court also deprecated the practice of judges dictating judgments in their chambers or residential office after court hours instead of doing it in open court.

Once pending case files pile up, it becomes increasingly difficult to remember the minute details of each case and the arguments advanced, the Supreme Court opined.

Eventually, the top court refrained from making any adverse observations against the Gujarat High Court judge.

It instead directed that the case be restored before the Gujarat High Court to be heard afresh by the roster bench.

"Needless to observe, the petition shall be considered and decided by the High Court uninfluenced by any observation made in the order bearing the date 1st March, 2023 ... We make it clear that we have not examined the rival claims on merits," the order clarified.

Advocates Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Dr Shailesh R Patel, Ganesh Khemka, and Ekta Kundu appeared for the appellant, one Ratilal Parmar.

Advocates Deepanwita Priyanka appeared for the State of Gujarat.

[Read Judgment]