Supreme Court of India

SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.versusRANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.

Citation: 2021 INSC 89
Decided: 15 February 2021
Disposal: Disposed off
Bench: INDU MALHOTRAAJAY RASTOGI

Holding

The Supreme Court held that delivering reasoned judgments promptly is mandatory and that a prolonged delay, or issuing operative orders without reasons, violates Article 21 and prejudices the parties.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the practice of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) of issuing operative orders without accompanying reasons, which prejudiced the parties and violated their right to a fair hearing under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the present case, the NCDRC pronounced an operative order on 26‑04‑2019 but delivered the reasoned judgment only on 20‑12‑2019, creating an eight‑month hiatus. The Court reiterated earlier judgments that such delays and the separation of operative and reasoned parts defeat the aggrieved party’s right to challenge the order on its merits. It directed the President of the NCDRC to discontinue the practice and to ensure that reasoned judgments are delivered within two months of the operative order. The appeal was dismissed, and the order was placed before the NCDRC President for compliance.

Issues considered

Whether pronouncing the operative part of an order without reasons violates the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Whether a delay of eight months in delivering a reasoned judgment prejudices the parties and defeats their right to challenge the order on merits.
What time frame is appropriate for the delivery of reasoned judgments after the operative order is pronounced.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21

Subjects

reasoned judgmentoperative orderdelay in judgment deliveryArticle 21National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionconstitutional rightscivil procedure

Judgment

544                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 544
                              REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                    SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.
                                         v.
                    RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.
                           (Civil Appeal No.9404/2019)
B                             FEBRUARY 15, 2021
             [INDU MALHOTRA AND AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
             Practice and Procedure: Practice of pronouncing the final
      operative part of the order without supporting reasons –
      Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are prejudiced if
C
      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
D     principle has been restated by the Supreme Court on several
      occasions wherein delay in delivery of judgments has been observed
      to be in violation of Art.21 of the Constitution of India – In the
      instant case, National Commission had passed operative order on
      26.04.2019 and its reasoned judgment was passed only after eight
      months – Direction to the President of the National Commission to
E
      look into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice
      is discontinued and the reasoned judgment is passed along with the
      operative order – In all the 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.
F
            State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi 1984
            (1) SCC 596 : [1984] 2 SCR 50; Anil Rai v. State of
            Bihar 2001 (7) SCC 318 : [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298;
            Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh & Ors. v. State of Gujarat
            & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3467; Mangat Ram v. State of
G           Haryana 2008 (7) SCC 96 : [2008] 2 SCR 80;
            Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. v. State of Chhattisgarh
            & Anr. AIR 201 SC 310 : [2017] 1 SCR 286; Balaji
            Baliram Mupade & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra
            & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronounced on
            29.10.2020); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaixhu Xie
H
                                        544
              SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. v.                                 545
               RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.

      & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronounced                      A
      on 11.12.2020); SJVNL v. M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil
      Appeal No. 494 of 2021 pronounced on 12.02.2021)
      - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference
[1984] 2 SCR 50                    relied on               para 3           B
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298            relied on               para 3
AIR 2004 SC 3467                   relied on               para 5
[2008] 2 SCR 80                    relied on               para 5
[2017] 1 SCR 286                   relied on               para 5
                                                                            C
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil appeal no. 9404 of
2019.
       From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2019 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Consumer
Case No. 671 of 2019.
                                                                            D
       Anish R. Shah, T. V. George, Soumitra G. Chaudhuri, Chanchal
Kumar Ganguli, Advs. for the appearing parties.
       The following Order of the Court was passed:
                                 ORDER
       In the present case, the reasoned order was passed on 20.12.2019     E
by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“National
Commission” for short) in C.A. No.9404 of 2019. A fresh civil appeal
was filed before this Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has been
dismissed vide Order dated 06.3.2020.
       This Court had vide Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the Registrar
                                                                            F
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, 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.                                        G
      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
                                                                            H
546             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved
      judgments. In State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi
      1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of this Court, as far
      back in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious
      difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was being
      adopted by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/
B
      Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orders
      without supporting reasons. 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
C     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.
             The afore-mentioned principle has been emphatically restated by
D     this Court on several occasions including in Zahira Habibulla M. Sheikh
      & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [AIR 2004 SC 3467 paras 80-82];
      Mangat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [2008 (7) SCC 96 paras 5-10];
      Ajay Singh & Anr. Etc. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. [AIR 2017
      SC 310] and more recently in Balaji Baliram Mupade & Anr. Vs. The
E     State of Maharashtra & Ors.(Civil Appeal No. 3564 of 2020 pronounced
      on 29.10.2020) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors.
      (Civil Appeal No. 4022 of 2020 pronounced on 11.12.2020) and SJVNL
      Vs. M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021
      pronounced on 12.02.2021) wherein the delay in delivery of judgments
      has been observed to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of
F     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 period.
            In the instant case, the operative order was pronounced on
      26.04.2019, and in the reasons disclosed, there is a hiatus period of eight
G     months.
             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. We would like to
H
               SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR. v.                                   547
                RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.

observe that in all matters where reasons are yet to be delivered, it must     A
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.
                                                                               B
Divya Pandey                                             Appeal disposed of.




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "reasoned judgment"Sign in to search