The Supreme Court of India recently nullified a judgment delivered by a retired judge of the Madras High Court. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, took a critical stance on the matter.
The Supreme Court of India recently nullified a judgment delivered by a retired judge of the Madras High Court, spotlighting the principle that a judge cannot retain a case file after demitting office. This ruling not only reinforces the sanctity of judicial procedures but also serves as a precedent for the handling of similar cases in the future.
Also Read- Supreme Court Orders Vote Recount In Chandigarh Mayor Polls, Says 8 Ballots Valid (lawchakra.in)
The case in question originated from a single judge’s bench in the Madras High Court, where a criminal appeal was decided with a one-line operative part announced on April 17, 2017. The intrigue surrounding this case intensified when it was revealed that the detailed judgment, complete with reasons, was only released on October 23, 2017, nearly five months after the judge’s retirement on May 26, 2017. This unusual delay and the post-retirement issuance of the judgment prompted the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the propriety of such actions.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, took a critical stance on the matter. They observed,
“..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.”
This observation highlighted the court’s disapproval of the judge’s actions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to procedural norms and ethical standards.
Further elaborating on the foundational principles of justice, the Supreme Court invoked the timeless words of Lord Hewart, stating,
“Lord Hewart said hundred years back that ‘justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done’. What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this Court is to set aside the impugned judgment and remit the cases to the High Court for a fresh decision.”
This reiteration serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of public confidence in the judicial system, where both the reality and the perception of justice are crucial.
The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the judgment and remit the case back to the High Court for fresh consideration underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and propriety of its processes. It sends a clear message that the principles of justice and ethical conduct must be upheld at all times, without exception.
This ruling not only addresses the specific impropriety involved in this case but also sets a significant precedent for the judiciary. It reaffirms the expectation that judges, both serving and retired, adhere to the highest standards of conduct and procedure, ensuring that justice is not only done but is unequivocally seen to be done.
