Supreme Court to examine whether oral pronouncement of judgment will close the case

The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to examine whether the oral pronouncement of a court's decision is sufficient to seal the fate of a case, or if a final, written signed judgment or order by the judge(s) is an indispensable requirement [MS Jaffar Sait v. Directorate of Enforcement]..A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Manmohan added that it will lay down the law on the timeline for courts to upload reasoned, written orders after such oral pronouncement."We have to lay down some law here. Whether such oral pronouncement saying 'petition disposed of' would actually mean that petition is disposed of and also the timeline for Court to upload a reasoned orders after such oral pronouncement," Justice Oka said..The Bench also took note of a recent ruling in which it had reiterated that courts must upload orders and judgments on their website in a timely manner. In that case, the Court had taken critical note of an instance where the Gujarat High Court had taken a year's time to upload a judgment that it had disposed of (by an oral pronouncement) in open court. .High Courts ignoring our binding orders: Supreme Court laments.The Bench on Wednesday noted that the additional dimension in the present case is whether courts can recall orders that have been pronounced in open court. "There has to be a law laid down. Particularly one thing could be (whether) judges can recall but after hearing the parties," Justice Oka said. The matter will be heard next on January 8, 2025. .The question arose after a Division Bench of the Madras High Court decided to recall its earlier decision to quash a money laundering case. On August 21 this year, a High Court Bench of Justices SM Subramaniam and V Sivagnanam pronounced in open court its decision to quash a money laundering case against retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Jaffer Sait. The case against Sait involves allegations that he illegally acquired a Tamil Nadu Housing Board plot of land in 2011. A corruption case registered in the matter against Sait by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) was quashed by the Madras High Court in 2019.Sait had then moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the ED's complaint in the matter as well, and initially secured relief on August 21. However, two days later, on August 23, the Bench suo motu recalled its earlier decision and decided to re-hear the matter on merits. This was after another Bench of Justices Subramaniam and R Sakthivel had questioned the ED on money laundering cases fizzling out before reaching their logical conclusion, owing to the quashing of the predicate offence FIRs..The August 23 decision to recall the August 21 order quashing the ED's complaint against Sait led to a heated exchange in the Madras High Court, and eventually led to an appeal by Sait before the Supreme Court.On September 6, the top court had directed the Registrar General of the Madras High Court to submit a detailed report in a sealed cover regarding the handling of the case. On October 4, the Court had stayed the Madras High Court's recall order.During yesterday's hearing, the Supreme Court added that the recall order cannot be sustained since none of the parties were heard before it was passed. .Going by the High Court Registrar General's report, the Supreme Court confirmed that Sait's plea to quash the ED case had been allowed by the High Court on August 21 by an oral pronouncement in court."Today, the peculiar position is that your (Sait) petition for quashing was allowed but without reasons - since they pronounced a single line order. (High Court) said that reasons will be given later, which was later recalled. We now come on square one," Justice Oka observed. Representing Sait, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that even an oral pronouncement of a verdict by the Court is a judgment in itself.This led the top court to observe that some law needs to be laid down on this aspect."We permit the parties to place additional judgments on this aspect and brief submissions on the issue. List on Wednesday, January 8. Interim relief to continue as already granted to the appellant," the Court ordered..Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the ED..[Live Coverage]