Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
VINOD KUMAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY & OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/11/1987
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
BENCH:
MISRA RANGNATH
RANGNATHAN, S.
CITATION:
1988 AIR 371 1988 SCR (1) 941
1988 SCC (1) 80 JT 1987 (4) 304
1987 SCALE (2)1046
ACT:
Provisions of the Civil Procedure Code-Whether a
judgment once pronounced in open Court becomes operative
even without the signatures of the Judges and any alteration
therein whether permissible.
HEADNOTE:
%
The appellant passed the Bachelor’s examination in law
with 54.5 per cent marks. He applied for admission to the
Master’s Course in law. The university had prescribed a
minimum of 55 per cent marks for admission to the course.
The appellant claimed weightage on certain grounds on the
strength of a precedent. The admission was, however,
refused. The appellant filed a writ petition. A Division
Bench of the High Court heard the writ petition and dictated
the judgment in the open court, allowing the petition and
directing the university to admit the appellant, but soon
thereafter, before the judgment was signed, the appellant’s
matter was again put in the hearing list to be heard afresh.
The Division Bench, which had allowed the writ petition,
released the case from its list and directed the same to be
listed before another Division Bench. On the matter being so
listed, the Second Division Bench dismissed the petition.
The appellant appealed to this Court by special leave
against the order of dismissal passed by the High Court.
Allowing the appeal and directing the university to
admit the appellant, the Court,
^
HELD: The provisions of Order 20, rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure give power to the Court to make
alterations/additions in a judgment so long as the judgment
has not been signed, but that power should be exercised
judicially, sparingly and for adequate reasons. When a
judgment is pronounced in the open court, the parties act
upon it and conduct their affairs on the basis that it is in
judgment of the court and that the signing of the judgment
is a formality to follow. A judgment to be operative does
not await the signing thereof by the court. If what is
pronounced in the court is not acted upon, the litigants
would be prejudiced; their confidence in the judicial
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
process would be shaken. A judgment pronounced in the open
court should be acted upon unless there be some exceptional
feature, like, soon after the judgment
942
is declared in the open court, a feature, not placed
for consideration before the court earlier, is brought to
its notice by either party to the cause, or the court
discovers some new facts from the record or the court
notices a feature, which should be taken into account, or a
review is asked for, which is granted. In such a situation
the court may take up the matter again for further
consideration, and it has to give good reasons if the
judgment delivered by it is not to be operative. [946B, D-H;
947A]
Since the writ petition of the appellant had first been
allowed by pronouncement of the judgment in the open court,
and there is nothing on record to justify why it was not
acted upon, the appeal succeeds. [947E-F]
Surender Singh and others v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh, [1954] 5 S.C.R. 330, relied upon.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2976 of
1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.3.1987 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 4397 of 1986.
S.N. Singh and T.N. Singh for the Appellant.
L.N. Sinha and L.R. Singh for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
O R R
Special leave granted.
Appellant passed Bachelor’s examination in law from the
Banaras Hindu University securing 54.4% marks and was placed
in the second division. He applied for admission in the
Master’s Course in Law in the academic session 1979/80. The
University had prescribed a minimum of 55% marks on the
average of three years of the degree course as the
qualifying requirement. Appellant claimed weightage on the
basis that members of his family had donated lands and
houses to the University and cited the case of Shri Anant
Narain Singh as a precedent. As he failed to secure
admission, he again applied for taking admission in the
academic session 1983-84 but was not granted admission.
Ultimately he filed a writ petition before the Allahabad
943
High Court. On 28.7.1986 the said writ petition was taken up
for hearing by a Division Bench and when hearing was
concluded, judgment was dictated in open Court allowing the
writ petition and direction to the University to admit the
petitioner was ordered. The appellant applied for certified
copy of the judgment but was told that the matter was again
in the hearing list and would be heard afresh. The matter
continued to appear in the hearing list from September 1986
till 5.2.1987 when the particular Division Bench which had
heard the matter released the case to be taken up by another
Bench. On 23rd of March, 1987, the writ petition was
dismissed by the new Division Bench.
Two contentions have been raised before us. It is
maintained that once the judgment was delivered in open
Court it became operative and could not be changed. The
dismissal of the writ petition after it had been once
allowed was, therefore, without jurisdiction; it was also
contended that on the facts of the case the appellant should
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
have been given admission.
There is no dispute that on 28.7.1986, a Division Bench
heard the writ petition and disposed it of. The order sheet
of that day reads thus:
"Sri Aditya Narain for the petitioner Sri
Siddheshwar Pd. for the respondents Petition heard
finally. Writ Petition disposed of".
Subsequently there is an endorsement without anybody’s
signature to the following effect:
Under signature (illegible) Listed for further
hearing".
On February 5, 1987, the same learned Judges who had allowed
the writ petition gave the following directions:-
"We release this case but we direct that this case
be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for
getting it listed before the appropriate bench as
the matter was once heard by us and judgment
dictated but later on was not signed and was
ordered to be listed for further hearing."
"As prayed by counsel for University the petition.
may be listed, if possible on 25th February,
1987".
944
There is no dispute that the writ petition had been
allowed by judgment pronounced in open Court on 28.7.1986
after hearing was concluded. According to the appellant the
judgment once pronounced in open Court became operative even
without signature of the learned Judges and could not be
altered. Reliance is placed on a judgment of this Court in
the case of Surendra Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar
Pradesh, [1954] 5 SCR 330. The facts of that case show that
a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court sitting at
Lucknow consisting of Kidwai and Bhargava JJ. heard a
criminal appeal and on 11th of December, 1952, judgment was
reserved. Before it could be delivered Bhargava J. was
shifted to Allahabad. While there, he dictated a judgment
treating it to be a judgment of both. He signed every page
of the judgment as well as at the end but did not put the
date. He sent it to Kidwai J. at Lucknow. On the 24th of
December, 1962, before the judgment was delivered Bhargava
J. passed away. On the 5th of January, 1953, Kidwai J.
delivered the judgment of the Court. He signed it had dated
it. The question as to whether the judgment was a valid one
came up for consideration. While dealing with such a
question, Bose J. spoke for the Court thus:-
"In our opinion, a judgment within the meaning of
these sections is the final decision of the court
intimated to the parties and to the world at large
by formal "pronouncement" or "delivery" in the
open court. It is a judicial act which must be
performed in a judicial way. Small irregularities
in the manner of pronouncement or the mode of
delivery do not matter but the substance of the
thing must be there: that can neither be blurred
nor left to inference and conjecture nor can it be
vague. All the rest-the manner in which it is to
be recorded, the way in which it is to be
authenticated the signing and the sealing, all the
rules designed to secure certainity about its
content and matter- can be cured; but not the hard
core, namely the formal intimation of the decision
and its content formely declared in a judicial way
in open court. The exact way in which this is done
does not matter. In some courts the judgment is
delivered orally or read out, in some only the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
operative portion is pronounced, in some the
judgment is merely signed after giving notice to
the parties and laying the draft on the table for
a given number of days for inspection."
"An important point, therefore, arises. It is
evident that the decision which is so pronounced
or intimated must be a
945
declaration of the mind of the court as it is at
the time of pronouncement. We lay no stress on the
mode or manner of delivery, as that is not of the
essence, except to say that it must be done in a
judicial way in open court. But, however, it is
done, it must be an expression of the mind of the
court at the time of delivery. We say this because
that is the first judicial act touching the
judgment which the court performs after the
hearing. Everything else uptil then is done out of
court and is not intended to be the operative act
which sets all the consequences which follow on
the judgment in motion. Judges may, not often do,
discuss the matter among themselves and reach a
tentative conclusion. That is not their judgment.
They may write and exchange drafts. Those are not
the judgment either, however, heavily and often
they may have been signed. The final operative act
is that which is formally declared in open court
with the intention of making it the operative
decision of the court. That is what constitutes
the judgment.........."
Bose J. continued to say:
"As soon as the judgment is delivered that becomes
the operative pronouncement of the court. The law
then provides for the manner in which it is to be
authtenticated and made certain. The rules
regarding this differ but they do not form the
essence of the matter and if there is irregularity
in carrying them out it is curable. Thus if a
judgment happens not to be signed and is
inadvertently acted on and executed, the
proceedings consequent on it would be valid
because the judgment, if it can be shown to have
been validly delivered, would stand good despite
defects in the mode of its subsequent
authentication".
"After the judgment has been delivered provision
is made for review. One provision is that it can
be freely altered or amended or even changed
completely without further formality, except
notice to the parties and a rehearing on the point
of change should that be necessary, provided it
has not been signed. Another is that after
signature a review properly so-called would lie in
civil cases but none in criminal; but the review,
when it lies, is only permitted on very narrow
grounds........."
946
The above observations were made, as already mentioned,
in a case where the judgment had been signed but not
pronounced in the open court. In the present case, we are
concerned with a judgment that had been pronounced but not
signed. The provision in order 20, rule 3 of the Code of
Civil Procedure indicates the position in such cases. It
permits alterations or additions to a judgment so long as it
is not signed. This is also apparently what has been
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
referred to in the last paragraph of the extract from the
judgment of Bose, J. quoted above, where it has been pointed
out that a judgment which has been delivered "can be freely
altered or amended or even changed completely without
further formality, except notice to the parties and re-
hearing on the point of change, should that be necessary,
provided it has not been signed." It is only after the
judgment is both pronounced and signed that alterations or
additions are not permissible, except under the provisions
of section 152 or section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure
or, in very exceptional, cases, under section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
But, while the Court has undoubted power to alter or
modify a judgment, delivered but not signed, such power
should be exercised judicially, sparingly and for adequate
reasons. When a judgment is pronounced in open court,
parties act on the basis that it is the judgment of the
Court and that the signing is a formality to follow.
We have extensively extracted from what Bose J. spoke
in this judgment to impresss upon everyone that
pronouncement of a judgment in court whether immediately
after the hearing or after reserving the same to be
delivered later should ordinarily be considered as the final
act of the court with reference to the case. Bose J.
emphasised the feature that as soon as the judgment is
delivered that becomes the operative pronouncement of the
court. That would mean that the judgment to be operative
does not await signing thereof by the court. There may be
exceptions to the rule, for instance, soon after the
judgment is dictated in open court, a feature which had not
been placed for consideration of the court is brought to its
notice by counsel of any of the parties or the court
discovers some new facts from the record. In such a case the
court may give direction that the judgment which has just
been delivered would not be effective and the case shall be
further heard. There may also be cases-though their number
would be few and far between-where when the judgment is
placed for signature the court notices a feature which
should have been taken into account. In such a situation the
matter may be placed for further consideration upon notice
to the parties. If the judgment delivered is intended not to
947
be operative, good reasons should be given.
Ordinarily judgment is not delivered till the hearing
is complete by listening to submissions of counsel and
perusal of records and a definite view is reached by the
court in regard to the conclusion. Once that stage is
reached and the court pronounces the judgment, the same
should not be reopened unless there be some exceptional
circumstance or a review is asked for and is granted. When
the judgment is pronounced, parties present in the court
know the conclusion in the matter and often on the basis of
such pronouncement, they proceed to conduct their affairs.
If what is pronounced in court is not acted upon, certainly
litigants would be prejudiced. Confidence of the litigants
in the judicial process would be shaken. A judgment
pronounced in open court should be acted upon unless there
be some exceptional feature and if there be any such, the
same should apear from the record of the case. in the
instant matter, we find that there is no material at all to
show as to what let the Division Bench which had pronounced
the judgment in open court not to authenticate the same by
signing it. In such a situation the judgment delivered has
to be taken as final and the writ petition should not have
been placed for fresh hearing. The subsequent order
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
dismissing the writ petition was not available to be made
once it is held that the writ petition stood disposed of by
the judgment of the Division Bench on 28.7.1986.
The record of the proceedings of the High Court which
is before us does not contain the judgment delivered in
court on 28.7.1986 but there is no dispute that the writ
petition had been allowed. On the conceded position that the
appellant’s writ petition was allowed by the High Court, the
University is directed to admit the appellant to the
Master’s Course in Law in the current session.
We understand that the University’s courses of study
have now been changed. The University shall take such steps
as are practicable to give effect to this decision.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no
order for costs.
S.L Appeal allowed.
948