Reserving Judgment : Guidelines to Judges : Supreme Court

Justice K.T. Thomas

Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi began their judgment in Anil Rai v. State with the observation : "The magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not do any judicial work at all. This Court strongly disapproves the magistrates making such a tremendous delay in the delivery of his judgments." The Supreme Court in the above case strongly deprecated the practice of judges in 'reserving' judgments in matters and not pronouncing them for long periods of time. The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for the said purpose, which are enumerated hereinbelow;

i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.

ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving judgment any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.

Royals Get Reprieve : To take Part in Auction

Source: Times of India

Bombay High court upholds the interim order of independent arbitrator Justice BN Srikrishna arbitrator's stay on IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals termination made by BCCI. 

Meanwhile, the court allowed Rajasthan Royals to take part in IPL 4 auction which will be held in January. 

However, the court has set financial conditions to Royals while upholding the stay and also directs Royals to file affidavit before it on January 3 specifying full details about mode of control. 

The BCCI had on October 10 decided to terminate the franchise agreement of Rajasthan Royals, along with that of Kings XI Punjab, for alleged breach of agreement by the two franchises. 

Royals had challenged the termination before the Bombay High Court.

Ex-CJI Balakrishnan received Letter on A. Raja: SC judge

Justice Gokhale

Source : Times of India

In an embarrassment to former CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, Supreme Court judge H L Gokhale on Tuesday contradicted his claim that he was not aware that it was former Union telecom minister A Raja, who had tried to influence a Madras High Court judge in a criminal case. 

In a statement, Justice Gokhale, who was the chief justice of the Madras High Court at that time, said that in his letter to Justice Balakrishnan, the then CJI, he had clearly referred to the name of Raja. 

Justice Gokhale's statement totally contradicts Justice Balakrishnan's claim that there was no mention of any Union minister in the report sent by Justice Gokhale, then High Court Chief Justice, on Justice S Reghupathi episode. 

"I regret to say that the allegations are absolutely incorrect," Balakrishan had said last week referring to news reports that he had suppressed a letter purportedly written by Justice Reghupathi to him when he was Chief Justice of India. 

In a statement on Tuesday, Justice Gokhale said, "The former CJI has stated in his press conference that in my letter I did not mention the name of any Union minister having talked to Justice Reghupathi over phone to influence him. 

"With respect to this statement I may point out that Justice Reghupathi's letter was already with him and in the second paragraph thereof justice Reghupathi had specifically mentioned the name of Raja. 

"I had no personal knowledge about the incident and observations in my reply wherein are in conformity with the contents of Justice Reghupathi's," Justice Gokhale said. 

News reports had alleged that Balakrishan had suppressed that letter which had purportedly alleged that Raja had tried to influence Justice Reghupathi which cast aspersion on him (CJI) that he had committed dereliction of duty. 

"When this incident was reported in the media, I sought for a report from the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court Justice Gokhale and he sent me a report wherein nothing was mentioned about any Union minister having made a telephonic talk with Justice Reghupathi to influence him," Balakrishan had said.

Accused Entitled to Copy of FIR : Directions & Guidelines : Delhi High Court

Justice Deepak Misra

You may recall our news bite relating to the Direction given by the Delhi High Court to put all FIRs online, in the case titled as Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Choudhary vs State. The Bench speaking through Chief Justice Deepak Misra has laid down certain guidelines for the said purpose. The relevant extract from the above Judgment is reproduced below;

"46. Keeping in view the law in the field, the entitlement of the accused, the mechanism suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General as as the learned counsel for the petitioner and regard being had to the of striking of balance, as had been referred to earlier, we proceed to our conclusions and the directions as enumerated below:

(A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in criminal case and his name may be finding place in a Information Report can submit an application through representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be within twenty-four hours.

(C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same be given by the court concerned within two working days. aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application the court as per law for redressal of his grievances.

(E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also duly communicated to the Area magistrate.

(F) The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being to the nature of the FIR.

(G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to grieved person.

(H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee eight weeks from today.

(I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file application for grant of certified copy before the court to which FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of application.

(J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011.

47. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police to appropriate action to effectuate the directions in an apposite so that grievances of this nature do not travel to court.

48. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."