Whether Delay in Delivery of Reasoned Judgment Violates Article 21 of the Constitution
The Report was submitted by the Registrar
(Judicial) stating that the order was Pronounced on
21.01.2020 being Only The Operative Portion and the
Reasons were received by the Registry only on 09.10.2020
after almost 9 Months. It was uploaded on the same
date.
9. On the Aforesaid Short Ground, without even looking
at any other aspect, we issued Notice Returnable for
today and Stayed the Operation of the Impugned Order.
10. We must note with regret that the counsel extended
through Various Judicial Pronouncements including the
one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored,
more Importantly where Oral Orders are Pronounced. In
case of Such Orders, it is expected that they are either
dictated in the Court or at least must follow
immediately thereafter, to facilitate Any Aggrieved
Party to seek Redressal from the Higher Court. The
Delay in Delivery of Judgments has been observed to be a
Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
Anil Rai’s case (supra) and as stated aforesaid, the
problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is
made available early and the reasons follow much later.
11. It cannot be countenanced that between the date of
the Operative Portion of the Order and the Reasons
Disclosed, there is a Hiatus Period of 9 Months!
This is much more than what has been observed to be The
Maximum Time Period for Even Pronouncement of Reserved
Judgment as per Anil Rai’s case (supra).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL N O.3564/2020
