The Trolley Problem and Judicial Decision-Making in India: Balancing Law, Morality, and Consequences

 Conceptual Foundation of the Trolley Problem

The trolley problem, a classic ethical dilemma, involves a hypothetical scenario where a runaway trolley is headed toward five people. The decision-maker must choose whether to divert it to a track with one person, sacrificing one life to save five. This thought experiment contrasts utilitarianism (prioritizing outcomes) and deontology (adhering to moral duties). Philosophers like Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson used it to explore the doctrine of double effect—distinguishing between intended harm and foreseen but unintended consequences.

Print Page

Supreme Court: What is duty of a party if they are in doubt about interpretation of any judgment or order of the court?

 If at all the parties are in doubts over the judgment and order of a court, the correct approach is to prefer a miscellaneous application for seeking clarification rather than proceeding to presume a self-serving interpretation of the decision. At this stage, we may also explain the correct approach to be adopted by the other courts and forums where a party seeks to espouse a cause based on its own understanding or interpretation of a decision of an higher authority. In such situations, the courts or forums should neither aid the parties in their attempt to reinterpret the decision of a higher court nor should they embark on an inquisitorial exercise of their own in order to derive the scope or intent of the order in question. The courts and tribunals should not conflate a decision of a higher court that declares a law with a decision that declares the inter-se rights of a parties, the former only operates as a precedent and thus, it is open for the lower courts to apply their minds to assess whether the same is applicable to the issues before it or what law has been laid down therein. However, the latter not only has precedential value but also carries with it the weight of determination of the issues directly involved between the very parties before it, the subject-matter itself and by extension the entire cause of action. Since such decisions have directly decided or given a finding on the inter-se rights and issues of the same parties that are before it and as such has to a certain extent a direct and palpable effect on the cause of action before it, in such circumstances, the courts and tribunals should refrain from interpreting or examining the scope or effect of such decisions on their own as the same would amount to relitigating the very same issues and rather should relegate the parties to seek clarification from the court that passed the order and adjourn further proceedings sine die. {Para 206}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 158-159 of 2024.

Decided On: 13.12.2024

Celir LLP Vs. Sumati Prasad Bafna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ.

Author: J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 978,MANU/SC/1343/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Kerala HC: Appellate court can only stay execution of decree and not stay the operation of the judgment

Going by the plain meaning of Order XLI Rule 5, it provides for only stay of the proceedings under a decree or stay of execution of the decree. The provision does not empower the appellate court to stay the operation of the judgment. Stay of operation of the judgment is not the same as staying the operation of the proceedings under a decree or staying the execution of a decree. An order staying the operation of the judgment will amount to staying the findings in the judgment, which cannot be done at the stage of admission.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP (C) No. 963 of 2021

Decided On: 01.11.2021

Raveendran Vs. Lalitha and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.G. Arun, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/2771/2021.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Judge Can't Retain Case File and deliver judgment After retirement

  One of the contentions raised in these appeals is

that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge

pronounced only one line order declaring the operative

part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017

and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd

October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge

demitted the office. On these facts, there is no

dispute. {Para 5}

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April,

2017. There were five weeks available for the learned

Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on

which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment

running into more than 250 pages has come out after a

lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned

Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even

after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned

reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us,

retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after

demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on

the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance

what has been done in this case.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024

@ Diary No.29911 of 2018)

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CBI CHENNAI  VS. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. 

Author: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

Dated: February 13, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 120.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Judgement Pronounced In Open Court But Signed After Transfer Of Judge A Valid Judgement

Applying the aforesaid exposition to the facts of present case, the judgment was pronounced in open Court and the objection is that the same was signed later on after the charge was transferred. The Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Singh (supra), has held that the judgment to be operative does not await signing thereof by the Court. It is not that after pronouncement the judgment was altered. The judicial act of pronouncement was performed and the signing and sealing which are the rules designed to secure certainty about its contents and matter remained, which as held by the Apex Court in the case of Surendra Singh and Ors (supra), can be cured. Although I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner that the judgment was signed after transfer of charge in view of the roznama on record and date below the signature, the aforesaid decisions are relied upon to drive home the point that judicial act of pronouncement of judgment in open court was complete and hence no fault can be found in the manner of delivery. {Para 18}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 75 35 OF 202 3

Suvarna Ratnakar Taras Vs Mangalprabhat Lodha and others 

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : July 17, 2023.

Print Page

What is the duty of the court while reading and interpretating any judgment?

 A judgment, as is well known, is not to be read as a statute. A judgment, it is trite, must be construed upon reading the same as a whole. For the said purpose the attendant circumstances may also be taken into consideration. [Islamic Academy of Education and Anr. v. State of Karnataka and Ors. MANU/SC/0580/2003 : AIR2003SC3724 , Zee Telefilms Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0074/2005 : AIR2005SC2677 and P.S. Sathappan v. Andhra Bank Ltd. - MANU/SC/0873/2004 : AIR2004SC5152 ].

{Para 22}.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1780 of 2005.

Decided On: 16.03.2005

Ramesh Chand Daga  Vs.  Rameshwari Bai

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Singh and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Author: S.B. Sinha, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0210/2005.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Supreme Court: It is duty of trial court or Appellate court to see that decree shall agree with the judgement

To meet the above contentions, learned Attorney General has made an elaborate argument by drawing our attention to the decree prepared by the Registry. In fact, we also summoned the original decree drafted by the Registry. A judgment comprises three segments (i) the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the reasons for the decision and (iii) the final order containing the decision. Order XX CPC requires a judgment to contain all the issues and findings or decision thereon with the reasons therefor. The judgment has to state the relief allowed to a party. The preparation of decree follows the judgment. The decree shall agree with the judgment. The decree shall contain, inter alia, particulars of the claim and shall specify clearly the relief granted or other determination of the suit. The very obligation cast by the Code that the decree shall agree with the judgment spells out an obligation on the part of the author of the judgment to clearly indicate the relief or reliefs to which a party, in his opinion, has been found entitled to enable decree being framed in such a manner that it agrees with the judgment and specifies clearly the relief granted. The operative part of the judgment should be so clear and precise that in the event of an objection being laid, it should not be difficult to find out by a bare reading of the judgment and decree whether the latter agrees with the former and is in conformity therewith. The obligation is cast not only on the trial court but also on the appellate court. Order 41 Rule 31 CPC casts an obligation on the author of the appellate judgment to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision and when the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. {Para 27}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 997, 998 and 1024 of 2007 and 6115 of 2008

Decided On: 08.10.2010

Omprakash Verma and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Author: P. Sathasivam, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0823/2010.(2010) 13 SCC 158.

Print Page

Whether the court can give judgment on the basis of judgment in another case which is not conclusive between the parties?

Suffice to say that the High Court, if intended to rely upon the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench passed in RFA No. 355/92, was bound to formulate an appropriate substantial question of law in terms of Sub-section (5) of Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure. It failed to do so. It has not been disputed before us and even otherwise it is apparent from the record that the High Court in setting aside the judgment of the trial court and the First Appellate Court, principally relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench rendered in RFA No. 355/92. There cannot be any doubt or dispute that the said judgment being not a judgment in rem was not binding upon the Appellants herein. It might have been taken in evidence but its relevance/evidentiary value was required to be considered and determined by referring to the appropriate provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, as envisaged Under Section 43 thereof. It, however, appears that this aspect of the matter was not argued before the High Court and, therefore, it had no occasion to consider the same. It is trite that the decision in a case cannot be rendered only on the basis of the judgment in another case which is not conclusive between the parties. {See: Surendra Kumar Vakil and Ors. v. Chief Executive Officer, M.P. and Ors. MANU/SC/0227/2004 : 2004 (10) SCC 126 (paragraph 10) and Sanjay Gera v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr. MANU/SC/0127/2005 : 2005 (3) SCC 207}.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 2122 and 2123 of 2000

Decided On: 11.08.2005

Om Prakash  Vs.  Kimtu and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhan and S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/2810/2005,(2005) 13 SCC 389.

Print Page

Whether Judicial officer claiming points towards disposal of a case without delivering signed judgment amounts to false declaration?

 In the backdrop of the above proceedings and on receipt of the consolidated report from the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, this Court took up the matter under Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2/2022 and passed a detailed order dated 02.01.2023 observing that such Roznama showing that the judgment is pronounced, but without any signed copy of the judgment available on record, cannot be termed as judgment even under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code or Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, such orders passed under the Roznama need to be quashed and set aside. We even directed the Registrar (Administration) of this Court to place the matter before the Administrative Committee for taking suitable action against the concerned Presiding Officer. {Para 21}

22. In spite of so many instances and the decision passed by this Court, it seems that the concerned Presiding Officer has not taken any care to keep the judgment ready in all respects before pronouncing it, which is the mandate as per Order XX of CPC and the relevant provisions under the Civil Manual, which is most disturbing. The learned Presiding Officer though claiming the points for disposal of such matters in her Returns, did not bother to keep the judgments ready in all respects.

23. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, is therefore required to look into the Returns filed by the concerned Presiding Officer in connection with all these matters wherein the judgments and orders are not found in the file, but the points are claimed towards disposal of such matters. It also amounts to giving a false declaration in the Returns. If it is found that the Presiding Officer has claimed the points towards disposal of such cases on merits without actually disposing of the matters by keeping the signed judgment/order ready, it would amount to giving a false declaration.

24. We, therefore, direct the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa, Margao, to thoroughly verify the monthly and four monthly Returns of the concerned Presiding Officer, Ms Aruna P. Fernandes, while working at Quepem or any other place in South Goa and to prepare a report as to whether she claimed the points towards disposal of the matters on merits wherein judgments/orders are not found in the file. Such a report shall be submitted within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order.

25. Coming back to the present matter, it is clear that the Roznama dated 18.02.2023 depicts that the judgment is pronounced; however, there is no signed judgment found in the entire record. Thus, such Roznama dated 18.02.2023 cannot be considered as a judgment of the Court by deciding the matter on merits. The Roznama further shows that an Application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was dismissed, and the proceedings were closed. Such order in the Roznama is without reasons, i.e. there is no signed judgment on record and, thus, cannot be considered as the judgment of the Court.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 446 of 2023

Decided On: 09.08.2023

 Karnataka Cement Pipes Factory Eng. and Contractors Vs. State of Goa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.

Author: Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/3263/2023

Print Page

Whether delay in delivery of judgment amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India?

 In Balaji Baliram Mupade & anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that judicial discipline requires promptness in the delivery of judgments-an aspect repeatedly emphasized by the 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 year of judicial scrutiny.  {Para 47}

48. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by making the following observations:

"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.

12. The appellant undoubtedly being the aggrieved party and prejudiced by the impugned order is unable to avail of 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.

49. Having said so and after consideration of the above-settled propositions of law laid down by the Supreme Court in connection with judgments in civil and criminal matters and the duty of Judicial Officers to complete such judgments/orders in all respect before pronouncing it, as a mandate, we found the situation emanating from the reports quite disturbing. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Suo Motu Writ Petition No. 2 of 2022

Decided On: 02.01.2023

 In Re: High Court on his own motion ( in the matter of pending Judgments and orders passed by Ad-hoc Sr. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., "A" Court, Quepem)

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.

Author: Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0015/2023.

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to file pleadings, issues and judgment of previous suit to prove the plea of res judicata?

 The rule of res judicata does not strike at the root of the jurisdiction of the court trying the subsequent suit. It is a rule of estoppel by judgment based on the public policy that there should be a finality to litigation and no one should be vexed twice for the same cause. {Para 11}

12. The plea of res judicata is founded on proof of certain facts and then by applying the law to the facts so found. It is, therefore, necessary that the foundation for the plea must be laid in the pleadings and then an issue must be framed and tried. A plea not properly raised in the pleadings or in issues at the stage of the trial, would not be permitted to be raised for the first time at the stage of appeal (See: (Raja) Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb v. Gour Hari Mahato and Ors. - MANU/PR/0022/1936, Madeapati Surava and Ors. v. Tondapu Bala Gangadhara Ramakrishna Reddi and Ors. - MANU/PR/0002/1947, Katragada China Anjanevulu and Anr. v. Kattragada China Ramava and Ors. - MANU/AP/0136/1965 : AIR1965AP177 ). The view taken by the Privy Council was cited with approval before this Court in The State of Punjab v. Bua Das Kaushal - MANU/SC/0492/1970 : (1971)ILLJ31SC . However, an exception was carved out by this Court and the plea was permitted to be raised, though not taken in the pleadings nor covered by any issue, because the necessary facts were present to the mind of the parties and were gone into by the Trial Court. The opposite party had ample opportunity of leading the evidence in rebuttal of the plea. The Court concluded that the point of res judicata had through out been in consideration and discussion and so the want of pleadings or plea of waiver of res judicata cannot be allowed to be urged.

13. Not only the plea has to be taken, it has to be substantiated by producing the copies of the pleadings, issues and judgment in the previous case. May be in a given case only copy of judgment in previous suit is filed in proof of plea of res judicata and the judgment contains exhaustive or in requisite details the statement of pleadings and the issues which may be taken as enough proof. But as pointed out in Syed Mohd. Salie Labbai (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors. v. Mohd. Hanifa (Dead) by Lrs. and Ors. - MANU/SC/0510/1976 : [1976]3SCR721 , the basic method to decide the question of res judicata is first to determine the case of the parties as put forward in their respective pleadings of their previous suit and then to find out as to what had been decided by the judgment which operates as res judicata.

It is risky to speculate about the pleadings merely by a summary of recitals of the allegations made in the pleadings mentioned in the judgment. The Constitution Bench in Gurbux Singh v. Bhoralal - MANU/SC/0241/1964 : [1964]7SCR831 , placing on a par the plea of res judicata and the plea of estoppel under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, held that proof of the plaint in the previous suit which is set to create the bar, ought to be brought on record. The plea is basically founded on the identity of the cause of action in the two suits and, therefore, it is necessary for the defence which raises the bar to establish the cause of action in the previous suit. Such pleas cannot be left to be determined by mere speculation or inferring by a process of deduction what were the facts stated in the previous pleadings. Their Lordships of the Privy Council in Kali Krishna Tagore v. Secretary of State For India in Council and Anr. - (1887) 15 IA 186, pointed out that the plea of res judicata cannot be determined without ascertaining what were the matters in issues in the previous suit and what was heard and decided. Needless to say these can be found out only by looking into the pleadings, the issues and the judgment in the previous suit.

14. That apart the plea, depending on the facts of a given case, is capable of being waived, if not properly raised at an appropriate stage and in an appropriate manner. The party adversely affected by the plea of res judicata may proceed on an assumption that his opponent had waived the plea by his failure to raise the same. 

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 7653 and 7654 of 1997

V. Rajeshwari Vs. T.C. Saravanabava

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti and Ashok Bhan, JJ.

Author: R.C. Lahoti, J.

Decided On: 16.12.2003

Citation: MANU/SC/1057/2003,(2004) 1 SCC 551

Print Page

Supreme court guidelines for Judgment writing

The purpose of judicial writing is not to confuse or confound the reader behind the veneer of complex language. The judge must write to provide an easy-to-understand analysis of the issues of law and fact which arise for decision. Judgments are primarily meant for those whose cases are decided by judges. Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court also serve as precedents to guide future benches. A judgment must make sense to those whose lives and affairs are affected by the outcome of the case.A judgment should be coherent, systematic and logically organised. It should enable the reader to trace the fact to a logical conclusion on the basis of legal principles. It is pertinent to examine the important elements in a judgment in order to fully understand the art of reading a judgment. 

A second small change worth considering would be for more judges to give better guidance to the structure and contents of their longer Judgments. Some judges already provide a clear framework, sometimes with a table of contents, a roadmap, at the beginning, and often with appropriate headings, signposts, throughout the Judgment. Kimble's study confirms that this is not just a good discipline but it is what the legal professional readers want, and, if it is what lawyers want, it is a fortiori what non-lawyers will want. A clear structure aids accessibility.

20. It is also useful for all judgments to carry paragraph numbers as it allows for ease of reference and enhances the structure, improving the readability and accessibility of the judgments. A Table of Contents in a longer version assists access to the reader.

21. On the note of accessibility, the importance of making judgments accessible to persons from all Sections of society, especially persons with disability needs emphasis. All judicial institutions must ensure that the judgments and orders being published by them do not carry improperly placed watermarks as they end up making the documents inaccessible for persons with visual disability who use screen readers to access them. On the same note, courts and tribunals must also ensure that the version of the judgments and orders uploaded is accessible and signed using digital signatures. They should not be scanned versions of printed copies. The practice of printing and scanning documents is a futile and time-consuming process which does not serve any purpose. The practice should be eradicated from the litigation process as it tends to make documents as well as the process inaccessible for an entire gamut of citizens.

22. In terms of structuring judgments, it would be beneficial for courts to structure them in a manner such that the 'Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion' are easily identifiable. The well-renowned 'IRAC method generally followed for analyzing cases and structuring submissions can also benefit judgments when it is complemented by recording the facts and submissions.

23. The 'Issue' refers to the question of law that the court is deciding. A court may be dealing with multiple issues in the same judgment. Identifying these issues clearly helps structure the judgment and provides clarity for the reader on the specific issue of law being decided in a particular segment of a judgment. The 'Rule' refers to the portion of the judgment which distils the submissions of counsel on the applicable law and doctrine for the issue identified. This Rule is applied to the facts of the case in which the issue has arisen. The analysis recording the reasoning of a court forms the 'Application' section.

24. Finally, it is always useful for a court to summarize and lay out the 'Conclusion' on the basis of its determination of the application of the Rule to the issue along with the decision vis-à-vis the specific facts. This allows stakeholders, especially members of the bar as well as judges relying upon the case in the future, to concisely understand the holding of the case.

25. Justice M.M. Corbett, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Africa, in a lecture at an orientation course for new judges,9 recommended a similar structure which facilitates orderliness and produces a logical, flowing judgment:

(a) An introductory section;

(b) Setting out of the facts:

(c) The law and the issues;

(d) Applying the law to the facts;

(e) Determining the relief (including order for costs); and

(f) Finally, the order of the Court.

This has also been captured by Justice Corbett,10 in the following extract:

27. For lucidity should be the prime aim of any judgment-writer. At the same time, certain aspects of style have a bearing on lucidity. In this connection, my advice (for what it is worth) is to keep your language and your sentence construction simple. Write in short sentences and do not try to pack too many ideas into a single sentence. Particularly in setting out facts, try to maintain a simple, straightforward flow to your narrative. Try to avoid the repetition of words or phrases and observe the normal Rules of grammar. A well-known exponent of simple language and the simple sentence was Lord Denning.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5305 of 2022

Decided On: 16.08.2022

State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Ajay Kumar Sood

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, JJ.

Author: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1040/2022

Print Page

Whether it is illegal on the part of the court to pronounce Judgment in absence of the Accused ?

 After   laying   down   the   procedure about the pronouncement  of the judgment,  sub­section  (5) of   Section 353 states that if the accused is in the custody, he shall be brought   to the Court to hear the judgment pronounced. Under sub­section (6), if   the accused is not in custody, he shall be required by the Court to attend to   hear   the   judgment   pronounced,   except   where   his   personal   attendance   during the trial has been dispensed with and the sentence is one of fine   only or he is acquitted.

24 From the above provisions it can be safely presumed that the presence   of the accused is insisted during the trial for more than one reason though   the provisions are made for dispensing with their personal attendance for   the reasons enumerated under Section 205 or 317, Cr.P.C. The reasons for   insisting   for   their   personal   attendance   are   that   during   the   trial,   the   presiding officer is expected to record the evidence in the presence of the   accused in the language known to him and the accused has to follow the   evidence that is being let in by the prosecution against his interests and   give   suitable   instructions   to   his   counsel   to   disprove   the   case   of   the   prosecution as he will be the appropriate person who knows the truth or   otherwise of the allegations made against him. Likewise the presence of the   accused is insisted at the time of pronouncement of the judgment and in   the event of his being convicted he has to be heard on the sentence to be   imposed. Hence, there is every justification in insisting for the appearance   of the accused during the trial. 

25 However, the judgment that the learned Magistrate may pronounce in   the  absence  of the  accused   by itself  will   not   vitiate   the   judgment.  Sub­ section   (7)   of   Section   353   of   the   Cr.P.C.   clearly   lays   down   that   no   judgment delivered by any criminal court shall be deemed to be invalid by   reason only of the absence of any party. 

26 The First question is answered accordingly. 

Gujarat High Court

Ishwarbhai Hirabhai Chunara vs State Of Gujarat & on 22 February, 2017

                   R/SCR.A/9112/2016     

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether Judgment delivered by the court without hearing the accused on the point of the sentence would vitiate proceedings?

  The learned counsel for appellant Sunilkumar submitted that the appellant was not heard in the matter of sentence before the learned Magistrate slapped a harsh sentence on him. The learned counsel submitted that the judgment is vitiated because the appellant was not heard, and hearing on the question of sentence is not confined to oral submissions but also intended to allow the accused to produce material bearing on the sentence. For this purpose, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab, reported at AIR 1976 SC 2386; that of Delhi High Court in Baburao Chandavar and others v. The State, reported at 1977 Cri.L.J. 1980; and that of Surai Prasad Sahu and others v. State, reported at 1972 Cri.L.J. 1346. {Para 37}

38. I have gone through the record. It may be seen that on 9-1-2007, the case was ordered to be fixed for judgment on 10-1-2007. It was, therefore, necessary for the appellant to remain present in the Court, if he wanted to be heard on the matter of sentence. When the learned Magistrate pronounced judgment of conviction on 10-1-2007, appellant Sunilkumar was not present. An application for exemption was moved on behalf of the appellant vide Exhibit 126, which was rejected. The learned Magistrate then proceeded to deliver the judgment, since the appellant did not remain present. It is not that the learned Magistrate was not willing to hear the appellant on the matter of sentence. It may be seen from the judgment that appellant Madhukar Smarth was actually heard by the learned Magistrate on the matter of sentence.

39. While it would have been undoubtedly ideal for the learned Magistrate to adjourn the pronouncement of judgment to a future date and to secure the presence of the appellant by causing a warrant to be issued against him, the appellant's absence is not a very serious infraction, particularly since he was represented by a counsel. It has not been stated by the learned counsel for appellant Sunilkumar before this Court that the appellant wanted to tender any specific evidence or produce any material at the hearing on the question of sentence. Therefore, whatever the appellant's counsel could have argued or submitted before the learned Trial Magistrate, he could have and, has, in fact, submitted before this Court also. Therefore, the sentence is not vitiated on account of failure of the learned Magistrate to hear the appellant.

Bombay High Court

Sunilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on 6 February, 2009

Print Page

Supreme court: Judgment Must Have Clarity On Exact Relief Granted So As To Avoid Difficulty In Execution

Even otherwise, it is to be noted that there is no clarity on the actual market price and while passing the final order, the High Court has not stated the exact market value and/or the amount of compensation to be paid. There is no actual assessment and/or determination of market value and/or the compensation. How on such a vague order, a decree can be drawn and how such an order is executable? The judgment must have a clarity on the exact relief that is granted by the Court so that it may not create further complication and/or difficulty in the execution. Every litigant must know what actual relief he has received from the Court. But the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court lacks total clarity. {Para 5}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

M.R. SHAH; B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ. 

MARCH 10, 2022 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1761 & 1762 OF 2022

Pramina Devi (Dead) Thr. LRs. VsState of Jharkhand 

Author: M.R. SHAH, J.

Print Page

Supreme court: HC to ensure that certified copy of judgment are issued as per S 76 of Evidence Act

Before parting, it may be noted that in the case of the accused Libnus, the State of Maharashtra while filing the Appeal before this Court had not produced the certified copy of the judgment of the High Court, however, had produced a copy of a certified copy, wherein the High Court had recorded acquittal of the accused for the offence under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, while maintaining his conviction under Sections 448 and 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC, whereas in the copy of the impugned judgment of the High Court downloaded by the respondent-accused produced on record by the learned Advocate for the accused, the High Court had recorded the conviction of the accused for the offence under Sections 448 and 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. There being a discrepancy in the said two copies of the impugned judgment of the High Court, the learned Advocate for the respondent-accused had filed an I.A. bringing to the notice of the Court about such discrepancy. The Court, therefore, had vide its order dated 27.10.2021 directed the Registrar of the High Court to send the certified copy of the decision of the High court dated 15.01.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2020. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has sent the certified copy of the said judgment.{Para 48}

49. It is very surprising to note that the Registry of High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, has certified the copy of the impugned judgment by affixing the stamp on the back side of every page of the judgment which is blank. The said copy of the judgment appears to have been downloaded from the website and, therefore, does not bear even the signature or the name of the concerned judge at the end of the judgment. The certificate that the said copy is a true copy of the judgment, is also not written at the foot of the judgment as contemplated in Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act. Such a practice, if followed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, may allow the miscreants to manipulate or commit mischief in the judicial orders which are used as the public documents having great significance in the judicial proceedings. The Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, therefore, is directed to look into the matter and ensure that proper procedure for preparing the certified copies of the judgments/orders of the Court in accordance with law is followed.
Supreme Court

JUSTICE UDAY UMESH LALIT JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA Vs. SATISH & ANR.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1410 OF 2021

18th November 2021

Author: BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

Citation: 2021 ALL SCR (ONLINE) 664

Print Page

Whether Appellate court can stay operation of Judgment while granting stay as per O 41 R 5 of CPC?

Going by the plain meaning of Order XLI Rule 5,

it provides for only stay of the proceedings

under a decree or stay of execution of the

decree. The provision does not empower the

appellate court to stay the operation of the

judgment. Stay of operation of the judgment is

not the same as staying the operation of the

proceedings under a decree or staying the

execution of a decree. An order staying the

operation of the judgment will amount to staying

the findings in the judgment, which cannot be

done at the stage of admission.

6. In the impugned order, the appellate

court has indicated the reasons for granting the

order of stay. Therefore, I do not find any

force in the submission that the order is bad for

application of mind and lack of reasons. At the

same time, even on being convinced of the reasons

for granting stay, the appellate court could have

stayed only the proceedings under the decree or

execution of the decree and not, the operation of

the judgment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

 MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

OP(C) NO. 963 OF 2021

RAVEENDRAN Vs  LALITHA

Dated this the 1st day of November, 2021

Print Page

Guidelines of Bombay high court for delivery of Judgments and orders Under POSH Act?

 I would suggest that these guidelines are the minimum required.

3.ORDERS

In all orders, the endeavour will be to anonymize the identities of the parties. Therefore:

(a)In the order sheets, the names of the parties will not be mentioned. The orders will read “A v B”, “P vs D” etc.

(b)In the body of the order, the parties will not be referred to by their names but only as Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 etc.

(c)In the body of any order, there will be no mention of any personally identifiable information (“PII”) such as email ids, mobile or telephone numbers, addresses etc. No witness’s names will be mentioned, nor will their addresses be noted.

(d)Orders/judgments on merits will not be uploaded. Because this order sets out general guidelines and does not address the merits, it is permitted to be uploaded.

(e)All orders and judgments will be delivered in private, that is to say, not pronounced in open court but only in Chambers or in-camera. 

(a)No PII document shall be retained by the Registry when any affidavit, application or pleading is being filed.

(b)For verification of identity, the Registry may ask for production of an identity document to establish the identity of the deponent, but no copy of any such document is to be retained on file.

(c)In the short titles of all further affidavits, parties must use the anonymized title as given at the head of this order.

(d)Under no circumstances will the registry enter the email id, mobile number, Aadhaar number or any other PII of any of the parties or witnesses in the CIS.

5.ACCESS

(a)The Registry will not permit anyone other than the Advocate-on-Record with a current and valid vakalatnama to take inspection or copies of any filing or order.

(b)The entire record is to be kept sealed and is not to be given to any person without an order of the Court.

(c)Fresh filings will also be sealed and kept with the main record.

(d)The record is not to be digitized by any third-party solution provider without an order of the court. If the 

record is to be digitized, directions will be sought from the Court for supervised digitization.

(e)Witness depositions will not be uploaded under any circumstances.

6.HEARINGS

(a)All hearings will only be in Chambers or in-camera.

(b)There will be no online or hybrid facility for hearings. All hearings must be by physical attendance.

(c)Only the advocates and the litigants are permitted to attend hearings. Support staff (clerks, peons, etc), must leave the Court.

(d)Except the Court Master/Associate or Sheristedar and the stenographer or person providing secretarial assistance, other Court staff must also leave the court and not be present at the hearing.

7.DIRECTIONS TO CERTIFIED COPY DEPARTMENT

(a)The Certified Copy Section/Department will not raise any objection because of the difference in the short or long title of the matter and the order in question.

(b)To the extent possible, parties will function using an ordinary, authenticated or digitally signed copy of every order.

(a)If any order is to be released into the public domain, this will require a specific order of the Court.

(b)This will be on the condition that only the fully anonymised version of the order of judgement is let into the public domain for publication.

9.BREACH

(a)The prohibition on publishing the names, address or other PII of the parties is absolute.

(b)It will continue to apply where that information about the parties has been obtained by using the contents of a judgment or order to discover information already in the public domain.

(c)All persons, including the media, are required to ensure strict compliance with these conditions of anonymity. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

10.MEDIA DISCLOSURE FORBIDDEN

(a)Both sides and all parties and advocates, as also witnesses, are forbidden from disclosing the contents of any order, judgment or filing to the media or publishing any such material in any mode or fashion by any means, including social media, without specific leave of the court.

(b)Witnesses to the action, in addition to the usual oath, must sign a statement of non-disclosure and confidentiality.

(c)All concerned will be bound by these guidelines, and failure to abide by these conditions will also be a contempt of court.

11.RECORDING PROHIBITED

(a)Any form of recording of any part of the proceedings is strictly forbidden.

(b)Any attempt to record or transcribe any part of the proceedings will be a contempt of court.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

SUIT NO. 142 OF 2021

P Vs  A 

CORAM:

G.S. PATEL, J

DATED: 24th September 2021

This guidelines are modified by high court. Here is the link

Bombay high court clarifies that its guidelines in POSH Act do not apply to all cases under POSH Act.

https://www.lawweb.in/2022/03/bombay-high-court-clarifies-that-its.html

Print Page

Whether a judgment once pronounced in open Court becomes operative even without the signatures of the Judges?

 The question as to whether the judgment was a valid one came up for consideration. While dealing with such a question, Bose J. spoke for the Court thus:-

"In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of these sections is the final decision of the court intimated to the parties and to the world at large by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in the open court. It is a judicial act which must be performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of delivery do not matter but the substance of the thing must be there: that can neither be blurred nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be vague. All the rest-the manner in which it is to be recorded, the way in which it is to be authenticated the signing and the sealing, all the rules designed to secure certainity about its content and matter- can be cured; but not the hard core, namely the formal intimation of the decision and its content formely declared in a judicial way in open court. The exact way in which this is done does not matter. In some courts the judgment is delivered orally or read out, in some only the operative portion is pronounced, in some the judgment is merely signed after giving notice to the parties and laying the draft on the table for a given number of days for inspection." "An important point, therefore, arises. It is evident that the decision which is so pronounced or intimated must be a declaration of the mind of the court as it is at the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the essence, except to say that it must be done in a judicial way in open court. But, however, it is done, it must be an expression of the mind of the court at the time of delivery. We say this because that is the first judicial act touching the judgment which the court performs after the hearing. Everything else uptil then is done out of court and is not intended to be the operative act which sets all the consequences which follow on the judgment in motion. Judges may, not often do, discuss the matter among themselves and reach a tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment. They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not the judgment either, however, heavily and often they may have been signed. The final operative act is that which is formally declared in open court with the intention of making it the operative decision of the court. That is what constitutes the judgment.........."

Bose J. continued to say:

"As soon as the judgment is delivered that becomes the operative pronouncement of the court. The law then provides for the manner in which it is to be authtenticated and made certain. The rules regarding this differ but they do not form the essence of the matter and if there is irregularity in carrying them out it is curable. Thus if a judgment happens not to be signed and is inadvertently acted on and executed, the proceedings consequent on it would be valid because the judgment, if it can be shown to have been validly delivered, would stand good despite defects in the mode of its subsequent authentication".

Supreme Court of India

Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University & Others on 11 November, 1987

Print Page

Whether acquittal of the accused pronounced by Judge is effective in the absence of signed Judgment?

 It is apposite to note that though CrPC does not define the term “judgment”, yet it has clearly laid down how the judgment is to be pronounced. The provisions clearly spell out that it is imperative on the part of the learned trial judge to pronounce the judgment in open court by delivering the whole of the judgment or by reading out the whole of the judgment or by reading out the operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by the accused or his pleader. {Para 16}

17. We have already noted that the judgment was not dictated in open court. Code of Criminal Procedure provides reading of the operative part of the judgment. It means that the trial judge may not read the whole of the judgment and may read operative part of the judgment but it does not in any way suggest that the result of the case will be announced and the judgment would not be available on record. Non- availability of judgment, needless to say, can never be a judgment because there is no declaration by way of pronouncement in the open court that the accused has been convicted or acquitted. A judgment, as has been always understood, is the expression of an opinion after due consideration of the facts which deserve to be determined. Without pronouncement of a judgment in the open court, signed and dated, it is difficult to treat it as a judgment of conviction as has been held in Re. Athipalayan and Ors[7]. As a matter of fact, on inquiry, the High Court in the administrative side had found there was no judgment available on record. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the counter affidavit filed by the High Court it has been mentioned that an incomplete typed judgment of 14 pages till paragraph No. 19 was available. The affidavit also states that it was incomplete and no page had the signature of the presiding officer. If the judgment is not complete and signed, it cannot be a judgment in terms of Section 353 CrPC. It is unimaginable that a judgment is pronounced without there being a judgment. It is gross illegality. 

19. Having stated that, as is evincible in the instant case, the judgment is not available on record and hence, there can be no shadow of doubt that the declaration of the result cannot tantamount to a judgment as prescribed in the CrPC. That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the trial in both the cases has to be treated to be pending.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Ajay Singh And Anr And Etc vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Anr on 6 January, 2017

Print Page