Reasoned judgments must be passed with the operative order while pronouncing  order in the Court.

 

Observation of the Apex Court ;

By the report dated 27.7.2020, we have been informed that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85 such cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but

reasoned judgments were not delivered so far.

  

Facts in this case

·        In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on 20.12.2019 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.A.No.9404 of 2019. , The operative order was pronounced on 26.04.2019, and in the reasons disclosed, there is a break period of eight months.

·        Court noticed that it is undisputed fact that  the rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized. It indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.

·        This Court issued Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the Registrar of the National Commission to submit a Report stating the number of cases in which reasoned judgments had not been passed, even though the operative order had been pronounced in Court.

·        By the report dated 27.7.2020, Court is informed informed that as on 20.12.2019, there were 85 such cases in which the operative order had been pronounced, but reasoned judgments were not delivered so far.

·         Court also made comment "The fact which has been brought to our notice by the Registrar of the Commission can, in no manner, be countenanced that between the date of operative portion of the order and the reasons are yet to be provided, or the hiatus period is much more than what has been observed to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved judgments",

Many Judgment have been pronounced by various courts directing to keep in view the interest of litigating parties while pronouncing the judgment

 

1.   In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court   in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties caused on account of a practice by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orders without supporting reasons.

 

2.     This was later again discussed by this Court in Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar

2001(7) SCC 318.

“Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized. It indeed amounts to defeating

the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.”

 

3.     In the matter of Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat& Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 8082];

4.     Mangat Ram Vs.State of Haryana [2008(7) SCC 96 paras 510];

5.     Ajay Singh& Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [AIR 2017SC 310]

6.     Balaji Baliram Mupade &Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Civil Appeal No.3564 of 2020 pronounced on 29.10.2020)

7.     Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4022 of 2020 pronounced on 11.12.2020) 

8.     SJVNL Vs.M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021 pronounced on 12.02.2021)

 

In all the above cases ,the delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be in violation of Article 21of the Constitution of India and the problems gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early, and the reasons follow much later, or are not made available for an indefinite time.

 

Court in the instant case now passed an order –“Let this Order be placed before the President of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to look into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice is discontinued, and the reasoned Judgment is passed alongwith the operative order.”

 It further directs –“We would like to observe that in all matters where reasons are yet to be delivered, it must be ensured that the same are made available to the litigating parties positively within a period of two months.

With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

 

 

Judgment signed by

 

J.Indu Malhotra J.Ajay Rastogi

New Delhi;

15th February, 2021

 

 

Previous

Next