Shivangi Prakash –
Published on: September 1, 2021, at 12:48 IST
The Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Judges should speak through their judgments and orders and should not issue oral directions since they do not become part of the Court record and should be avoided.
The Supreme Court stated that when oral regimes dominate, the aspect of judicial accountability is removed, and this would set a hazardous precedent that is undesirable.
The observations were made by a Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah in a decision of an appeal from a Gujarat High Court verdict that issued an oral order not to arrest an accused in a case of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
“Oral observations in Court are in the course of judicial discourse. The text of a written order is what is binding and enforceable. Issuing oral directions (presumably to the public prosecutor) restraining arrest, does not form a part of the judicial record and must be eschewed,” observed the Bench.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court’s approach of granting an oral order restraining the first respondent’s arrest was improper.
If the High Court believes that counsel for the parties should be given the opportunity to examine the prospect of a settlement and, as a result, interim protection against arrest should be granted, the bench noted that particular judicial order to that effect was required.
In the absence of a judicial order, the investigating officer would have no official record from the High Court on which to enforce a stay of arrest, according to the Apex Court.
The Bench stated that Judges, like public officials over whose behaviour they preside, are accountable for their actions.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon, who had approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of FIRs filed against him under sections 405 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 465 (forgery), 467 (forgery of valuable security, will, etc.), 468 (forgery for the purpose of cheating), and 471 (using as genuine a forged document) of the Indian Penal Code.
Menon was arrested while the case was pending before the High Court.
When the case was reopened following the arrest, the High Court decided that counsel for the parties should be given the opportunity to examine the prospect of a settlement, and an interim protection against arrest was granted on that basis.
Click here to read/download the Order