The Supreme Court said that a shocking judicial order can seriously damage public trust in the institution. The bench made the remark while hearing a petition challenging directions asking the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal’s in-charge chairman to step aside.
The Supreme Court remarked that a shocking order issued by the court undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
The comments were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi while hearing a petition challenging an order that required the Gujarat government to issue instructions directing the in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal to step down on administrative leave.
The case was filed against a September 2024 decision of the Gujarat High Court.
In its order, the High Court observed that the then in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had passed two diametrically different orders in 2024, particularly regarding the issue of condonation of delay in a matter.
During the hearing, the apex court observed,
“It shocks our conscience the manner in which he (in-charge chairman) dealt with the two applications,”
The bench said,
“What happens is, if you pass a wrong order, it is okay… But if you pass a shocking order, it shakes the faith of people in the judiciary,”
After hearing the plea, the Supreme Court agreed to take it up and issued notice to the respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the judicial officer was a retired principal and district judge, with an otherwise spotless service record.
When the bench asked about the two orders, the lawyer submitted that there had been an error.
He further contended that although the officer was presiding over matters on his dais, he was instructed to step down.
The bench said,
“We are issuing notice. Let the state come,”
The High Court had passed the impugned order while considering challenges to the tribunal’s decisions dated May 2024 and April 2024, both issued by the in-charge chairman.
The High Court noted that before the tribunal, a common order passed by the deputy collector in August 1996 in a tenancy appeal was under challenge.
According to the High Court, the April 2024 order did not interfere with the deputy collector’s decision on the ground that no reason was provided for the delay of 22 years in challenging it.
However, the High Court said that in the May 2024 order, the tribunal had condoned the delay without a separate application for condonation of delay.
While the matter was being heard, the advocate general told the High Court that the state was examining the issue seriously at the highest level.
The High Court had recorded,
“In this view of the matter, since the State is looking into the matter at the highest level, to this court, it would appear that the State should instruct the concerned member not to take up any further matters till the State finally opines whether the orders passed were justifiable or not,”
The High Court then set aside both tribunal orders, describing them as “unsustainable.”
The High Court had further directed,
“The State, i.e. the secretary, revenue department, shall also ensure that appropriate instructions to the in-charge chairman, Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, are issued before the end of the day, directing him to step down on administrative leave during the State takes an appropriate decision into his conduct as a chairman of the tribunal concerned,”
It also clarified that its observations were only prima facie and should not be treated as the court’s final view on the member’s conduct or competence.