SC: Inordinate Delay In Delivering The Reasoned Judgment Is Violative Of The Right To Life

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

• In the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade vs. State Of Maharashtra, the bench consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy of the Supreme Court have showed their concern regarding the inordinate delay in delivering the final judgment by the High Courts and reminded the courts that this delay results in the violation of Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
• The order pronounced on 21st Jan 2020 was the only operative portion in this case as the reasoned judgment for the verdict was passed after a gap of nine months since the delivery of the order by the Bombay High Court.
• The detailed judgment recording the reasons was delivered only after the Supreme Court on 7th October sought a report from the concerned Registrar of the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.
• The court noted that it had noticed a number of such decisions and therefore directed a circulation of a copy of the order to all the High Courts of the country by the registry.
• The bench set aside the verdict and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision on the matter by a bench not consisting of the earlier Judges.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE APEX COURT

• The apex court, while considering an appeal against the order dated 21.01.2020 as
  delivered by the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court, observed in its order, ‘‘Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments – an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.’’
•  The bench led by Justice Kaul said in its order, "We have little option in the aforesaid facts of the case but to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for the reconsideration of the High Court on merits uninfluenced by the reasons which have been finally disclosed in respect of the impugned order.."
• "The appellant undoubtedly being the aggrieved party and prejudiced by the impugned order is unable to availing the legal remedy of approaching this court where reasons can be scrutinized. It really amounts to defeating the rights of the appellant to challenge the impugned order on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation," the bench further observed while upholding that the delay in delivery of reasoned judgment is violative of the Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS OF THIS COURT ·

The apex court noted that in 1983, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi - 1984 (1) SCC 596 had focused on the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment.

In Anil Rai v. State of Bihar - 2001 (7) SCC 318, this court laid down some guidelines to follow during pronouncing of judgments. The court said that normally the judgment is expected within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. If, for any reason, no judgment is pronounced for six months, any of the parties is entitled to move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THIS DECISION? MENTION YOUR OPINIONS IN THE COMMENTS BELOW.