Bar & Bench: New Delhi: Saturday,
March 11, 2017.
The fact that
the Supreme Court concluded hearing arguments and reserved judgment in sixteen
cases last week may not mean much in isolation.
However, the
gap between the date when the judgment is reserved, and the date when the
judgment is delivered could indicate whether the Bench accorded due priority to
the delivery of the judgments. If judgments are delivered soon after the
conclusion of arguments, it would also mean that the issues debated are fresh
in the minds of the judges, when they write the judgments.
The Supreme
Court rightly held in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar in 2001 that,
“…the
confidence of the litigants in the results of the litigation is shaken if there
is unreasonable delay in rendering a judgment after reserving the same.”
Sometimes,
the Bench may decide the issues equitably and objectively despite the
inordinate delay after the conclusion of arguments, but the supervening factors
occurring in the meantime may defeat the purpose of the litigation.
A classic
instance is the recent judgment in J Jayalalithaa case, when the judgment was
delivered seven months after the conclusion of the hearings. The consequences
were the abatement of the charges against the prime accused, who passed away in
the meantime. Besides that, a full-scale constitutional crisis was created by
another accused in her bid for Chief Ministership, before her acquittal was
reversed by the Supreme Court.
The
disclosure of information regarding such judgments also has a legal dimension.
The Central
Information Commission (CIC) had directed the Supreme Court to maintain its
record in such a manner that RTI applicants could be informed of the number of
reserved judgments.
A single
judge of the Delhi High Court had first dismissed the appeal of the Supreme
Court against the directive of the CIC to provide such information to an
applicant. A Division Bench of the High Court had later reversed the decision
of the single judge. An appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench in
the Supreme Court was also dismissed in limine, thus imposing no obligation on
the Supreme Court’s Registry to provide such information to the applicants
under the RTI Act.
Considering
the importance of the principle laid down in Anil Rai, Bar & Bench will
strive to provide information, week after week, about the judgments reserved by
the Supreme Court. An effort will be made, in due course, to quantify the gap
between the dates when the judgments are reserved, and delivered. When the
judgments reserved are not delivered within a reasonable period of time, they
will be brought to light.
Of the twelve
judgments delivered by the Supreme Court last week, six of them were reserved
in February 2017. One was reserved on January 24. The remaining five were not
reserved at all, and were delivered immediately after the conclusion of
arguments.
Justice
Kurian Joseph delivered four of these judgments, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman
delivered three, while Justices Dipak Misra, J Chelameswar, L Nageswara Rao,
Deepak Gupta, and Prafulla C Pant delivered one each.
One has to
wait and see how many of the sixteen judgments reserved last week will be
delivered within the next two or three months, the time-limit fixed by the
Supreme Court in the Anil Rai case as the reasonable period for the High Courts
to adhere to.
The
details of the 16 judgments reserved last week are as follows:
1.
M/s Brakewel Automative Components (India) Pvt Ltd v.
P.R.Selvam Alagappan, SLP [c] 20745/2016, heard by Justices Arun Mishra and
Amitava Roy, reserved on February 27.
2.
Vipulbhai Mansingbhai Chaudhary v. State of Gujarat,
Civil Appeal 14678/2015, heard by Justices J.Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar
Sapre, reserved on February 27.
3.
Kanthamani v. Nasreen Ahmed (C.A.2714/2008) heard by
Justices R.K.Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, reserved on February 28.
4.
Pawan @ Rajinder Singh and ANR v. State of Haryana (Crl.
Appeal 2194/2014) heard by Justices N.V.Ramana and Prafulla C Pant, reserved on
February 28.
5.
Rustom Kerawalla Foundation v. State of Maharashtra &
Ors. (SLP[c] 29067/2011) heard by Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh
Lalit, reserved on February 28
6.
Union of India v. Besco Ltd (SLP[c] 17838/2014) heard by
Justices Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, reserved on February 28
7.
Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) etc. v
Baranagore Jute Factor PLC. etc. (SLP [c] 25733/2015) heard by Justices Kurian
Joseph and R Banumathi, reserved on March 1
8.
Ram Singh v Jammu Development Authority, (SLP[c] 25741/14
heard by Justices RK Agrawal and Abhay Manohar Sapre, reserved on March 1.
9. Kattukulangara Madhavan (Dead) Thr. LRS. v. Majeed &
Ors. (Crl. Appeal 400/2006), heard by Justices SA Bobde and L.Nageswara Rao,
reserved on March 1.
10. Suman Singh v.
Sanjay Singh (CA 7114/2014) heard by Justices RK Agrawal and Abhay Manohar
Sapre, reserved on March 1.
11. Mohan Kumar v.
State of M.P.& Ors. (CA 1412/2008) heard by Justices RK Agrawal and
A.M.Sapre, on March 1
12. Ravish and Anr v
R.Bharathi (SLP[c]16722/2016) heard by Justices Kurian Joseph and R Banumathi,
reserved on March 1.
13. Bishnu Sarkar
& Ors v. State of West Bengal (Crl. Appeal 703/2008) heard by Justices
Adarsh Kumar Goel and UU Lalit, reserved on March 2.
14. Faridabad Complex
Administration v. M/s Iron Master India (P) Ltd. (CA 1182/2007) heard by
Justices RK Agrawal and AM Sapre, reserved on March 2
15. Eera Through
Dr.Manjula Krippendorf v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) and Anr. (SLP (Crl)
2640/2016 heard by Justices Dipak Misra and Rohinton Fali Nariman, reserved on
March 2.
16. Dinesh Yadav v
State of Jharkhand (SLP [crl] CRLMP 16556/2016) heard by Justices Dipak Misra
and Mohan MShantanagoudar, reserved on March 3.
.JPG)
.JPG)
