- Rights
- Rule of law
- Niches
- Areas
- Courtroom
- In focus
- Multimedia
- Art, literature and more
- Special issues
- Rights
- Rule of law
- Niches
- Areas
- Courtroom
- In focus
- Multimedia
- Art, literature and more
- Special issues
As Justice A.S. Oka closes in on a century of 'non-reportable' judgments, Rudrajyoti Nath Ray meditates on the larger meaning of this unprecedented feat.
—
THE judges of the Supreme Court and the words they write through their judgments have an obvious importance. Both have a direct bearing on how the law of our land stands and will stand in the future.
Thus, without doubt, every Supreme Court judgment should be recorded and is indeed, in real-time, preserved by the Supreme Court itself in its own archives.
Despite such consistency of preservation, to what end do some Supreme Court judgments carry the word 'non-reportable'?
Is it a suggestion by the Supreme Court to publishing houses, online portals and newspapers as well as to students, journalists, academicians and advocates that it shall be fine if 'non-reportable' judgments are not reported?
“Without doubt, every Supreme Court judgment should be recorded and is indeed, in real-time, preserved by the Supreme Court itself in its own archives.
My first thought is that comparing the judgments written by the Supreme Court in the 2020s to those produced by it in the 1950s, the court, in its wisdom, intends to limit our concentration to important judgments, elucidating what is truly new while allowing a 'non-reportable' to rest in peace unless it is absolutely necessary to dig one out of its grave from Supreme Court's highly esteemed archives.
In the context of this first thought arrives our protagonist Justice Abhay S. Oka, who was sworn in as a Supreme Court judge on August 31, 2021 and shall remain in office till May 25, 2025. As of Monday, March 25, 2024, Justice Oka has composed at least 99 'non-reportable' judgments.
In Rajendra Prasad versus State of Uttar Pradesh it was said, "This decision shall not be treated as a precedent." National Gandhi Museum versus Sudhir Sharma was, however, cited by Justice Oka himself in Ramesh Chand versus Delhi Transport Corporation.
Rajendra, National Gandhi, Ramesh Chand are all 'non-reportables'. It is clear that a 'non-reportable' judgment does carry weight and authority unless pointed out otherwise.
A 'non-reportable' Jamboo Bhandari versus M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation was, in fact, recently cited in a 'reportable' Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava versus State of Jharkhand. Both Jamboo and Rakesh were authored by Justice Oka.
Do note that Justice Oka still has more than a year left in his tenure as a Supreme Court judge.
This is not to suggest that Supreme Court judges writing 'non-reportable' against their judgments is an unheard-of practice. But Justice Oka's present count of 99 is a first.
If all other Supreme Court judges follow suit and, for instance, Supreme Court Cases (SCC) Journal does not report 'non-reportables', entire walls in lawyers' chambers and offices would not be covered by racks of SCC Journals in years to come.
But knowing we live in an era where data can be efficiently stored virtually, the reason behind Justice Oka's significant 99 'non-reportable' judgments cannot be as simple as to assist those who still purchase or print on sheets of paper.
“As of Monday, March 25, 2024, Justice Oka has composed at least 99 'non-reportable' judgments.
I cite, at this point, V. Vasanthakumar versus H.C. Bhatia which, on July 13, 2016, stood referred to a larger Bench by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice T.S. Thakur.
Justice Thakur had observed that the number of cases filed is on the rise every year! It was argued, "[The] Supreme Court had strayed from its original character as a Constitutional Court."
My second thought is that perhaps the true reason behind Justice Oka's 99 'non-reportables' is this very change of character of the Supreme Court.
For proof, some illustrations. In Vasudha Sethi versus Kiran V. Bhaskar, Justice Oka dealt with the welfare of a minor. It was held that the welfare of a minor being of paramount consideration the well-being of a child received precedence over the individual or personal rights of parents.
In Sahebrao versus Raosaheb, a case involving a crime under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Justice Oka pointed out that if undue sympathy is shown by reducing a sentence to a minimum, it may adversely affect the faith of people in the efficacy of the law.
In State of Punjab versus Paramjit Singh, in a case of murder, the court doubted the prosecution's story of the respondent-accused confessing to a 'stranger'. Justice Oka analysed that going by normal human conduct, an accused would confess only to a person in whom he can repose faith and, normally, he would not confess to a 'stranger', that too after a gap of 13 to 14 days.
Interestingly, in Union of India versus K. Pushpavanam, the respondent urged that it was necessary for the legislature to introduce a law dealing with 'liability in tort'.
A direction had been issued to the Union government to introduce a Bill and an outer limit of six months had been fixed by the Madras High Court. Justice Oka held that a writ court cannot direct the government to consider introducing a particular Bill before the legislature within a time frame.
“Not to suggest that Supreme Court judges writing 'non-reportable' against their judgments is an unheard-of practice, but Justice Oka's present count of 99 is a first.
In Niranjan Das versus State of West Bengal, it was highlighted that an advocate must be given time to prepare himself.
In Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited versus Yashwantrao Mohite, Justice Oka forewarned that if members of the Bar do not cooperate with trial courts, it will be very difficult for our courts to deal with huge arrears.
Finally, Justice Oka reminded us in State of Rajasthan versus Gautam that an accused has no caste or religion when a court deals with his case and the caste or religion of a litigant should never be mentioned in a cause title of a judgment.
While each of the above-illustrated 'non-reportable' judgments carries weight and precedent-value, a sitting Supreme Court judge decided to tag each of them as a 'non-reportable'.
Also read: The undying flame of Fali S. Nariman
My final thought is that Justice Oka's call seems to match the disdain expressed in V. Vasanthakumar, that the Supreme Court has gradually converted itself into a mere court of appeal to correct every error it found in the decisions of a high court and numerous tribunals and that it should not be so.
“We live in an era where data can be efficiently stored virtually, the reason behind Justice Oka's significant 99 'non-reportable' judgments cannot be as simple as to assist those who still purchase or print on sheets of paper.
A need for reform is witnessing a scream through Justice Oka's silencing of his own judgments. After July 13, 2016, V. Vasanthakumar was last heard on August 30, 2022. Never since.
While we wait, please assess and understand Justice Oka's 99 'non-reportable' judgments yourself.
2021
2022
“My second thought is that perhaps the true reason behind Justice Oka's 99 'non-reportables' is the change of character of the Supreme Court.
2023
2024
