Judicial AccountabilityOpinionSupreme Court

The ninety-nine non-reportable judgments of Justice A.S. Oka

·
Home
Judicial Accountability

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.

Also read: Calcutta Justices brouhaha: Supreme Court stays both Orders, to hear the matter on Monday

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. 

Also read: Can Indian citizens demand public probity from the CJI?

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

  1. Nagendra Sah versus State of Bihar, Crl. A  1903/2019 September 14, 2021
  2. National Gandhi Museum versus Sudhir Sharma, CA 8215-8216/2011 September 24, 2021
  3. State of Madhya Pradesh versus Somdutt Sharma, CA 6093/2021 September 29, 2021
  4. Jayan versus State of Kerala, SLP (Crim.) 6767/2016 October 22, 2021
  5. Badrilal versus Suresh, CA 6524/2021 October 28 2021
  6. Transport Corporation of India Ltd versus Employees State Insurance Corp., CA 3135/2011 October 29, 2021
  7. Narayana Prasad Sahu versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. 1312/2021 October 29, 2021
  8. Soman versus Inland Waterways Authority of India, CA 2825/2011 December 10, 2021
  9. Bordeuri Samaj of Sri Sri Maa Kamakhya versus Riju Prasad Sharma, Contempt P (Civil) 853-855/2015 December 15, 2021

2022

  1.  Vasudha Sethi versus Kiran V. Bhaskar, Crl. A 82/2022 January 12, 2022
  2.  Ram Kumar versus State of Haryana, Crl. A 104/2022 January 19, 2022
  3.  Vetrivel versus State, Crl. A 106/2022 January 19, 2022
  4.  Mohammed Masroor Sheikh versus Bharat Bhushan Gupta, CA 874/2022 February 2, 2022
  5.  Kamgar Swa Sadan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd versus Vijaykumar Vitthalrao Sarvade, CA 1222/2022 February 8, 2022
  6.  Sk. Supiyan versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl. A 198/2022 February 9, 2022
  7.  Debananda Tamuli versus Smti Kakumony Kataky, CA 1339/2022 February 15, 2022
  8.  Bihar Industrial Area versus Rama Kant Singh, CA 2030/2022 March 15, 2022
  9.  Gadhadhar Chandra versus State of West Bengal, Crl. A. 1661/2009 March 15, 2022
  10.  Sanjay Patel versus State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Crim.) 5604/2009 April 13, 2022
  11.  Noida Industrial Development Authority versus Ravindra Kumar, CA 3762/2022 May 9, 2022
  12.  Union of India versus Ex. Naik Ram Singh, CA 9654/2014 July 18, 2022
  13.  K.S. Sahu versus Union of India, CA 11287/2013 August 5, 2022
  14.  Sahebrao versus Raosaheb, Crl. A. 1499/2022 September 6, 2022
  15.  Sudha versus Jaiprakash Associates Ltd, CA 6439/2021 September 16, 2022
  16.  Ramcharan versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. 162/2010 December 7, 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

  1.  National Institute of Rural Development versus Shyam Sunder Prasad Sharma, CA 542/2023 February 28, 2023
  2.  Radhey Shyam versus State of Rajasthan, Crl. A, 2208/2010 April 12, 2023
  3.  Sita Ram versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. A 1029/2023 April 12, 2023
  4.  Dr S.M. Mansoori versus Surekha Parmar, Crl. A 1088/2023 April 12, 2023
  5.  Shiv Mangal Ahirwar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A 814/2023 April 13, 2023
  6.  Yedala Subba Rao versus Union of India, Crl. A 1153/2023 April 17, 2023
  7.  Bothilal versus Intelligence Officer, Crl. A 451/2011 April 26, 2023
  8.  Asian Avenues versus Syed Shoukat Hussain, CA 2927/2023 April 28, 2023
  9.  Meenal Bhargava versus Naveen Sharma, Contempt Petition (Civil) Nos. 340-342/2022 May 16, 2023
  10.  K.J. Somaiya Medical College and Research Centre versus Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, CA 3180-82/2016 May 19, 2023
  11.  Ramesh Chand versus Delhi Transport Corporation, CA 4208/2023 July 5, 2023
  12.  Abdul Ansar versus State of Kerala, Crl. A. 1751/2023 July 5, 2023
  13.  Ankita Bhati versus Dev Raj Singh Bhati, Transfer P (Civil) 1770/2021 July 13, 2023
  14.  Delhi Development Authority versus Jagan Singh, CA 4335/2023 July 13, 2023
  15.  State of Himachal Pradesh versus Meer Baksh, CA 6168/2016 July 19, 2023
  16.  Chennupati Kranthi Kumar versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. A. 1601-1602/2023 July 25, 2023
  17.  Dilip Kumar versus Braj Raj Shrivastava, Crl. A. 561/2012 July 26, 2023
  18.  Yogendra Prasad Singh versus Ram Bachan Devi, CA 10412/2013 July 31, 2023
  19.  State of Punjab versus Paramjit Singh, Crl. A 1306/2014 August 2, 2023
  20.  Ashok Shewakramani versus State of Andhra Pradesh, Crl. A. 879/2023 August 3, 2023
  21.  Razia Khan versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. 2259/2023 August 3, 2023
  22.  Asma Shaw versus Islamia College of Science and Commerce, CA 4951/2023 August 8, 2023
  23.  Jaipur Development Authority versus State of Rajasthan, CA 7018/2022 August 9, 2023
  24.  Balla versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A. 2256/2011 August 10, 2023
  25.  Union of India versus K. Pushpavanam, CA 5049/2023 August 11, 2023
  26.  Commissioner of Service Tax versus 3I Infotech Ltd, CA 4007/2019 August 14, 2023
  27.  Moorthy versus State of Tamil Nadu, Crl. A 975/2011 August 18, 2023
  28.  Mina Pun versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. A 2499/2023 August 22, 2023
  29.  Ram Manohar versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. A 760/2022 August 24,  2023
  30.  Vijaya Bhiku Kadam versus Mayani Bhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, CA 5483-5484/2023 August 28, 2023
  31.  Niranjan Das versus State of West Bengal, Crl. A. 2643-44/2023 August, 29  2023
  32.  Rajendra Prasad versus State of Uttar Pradesh, CA 5610/2023 September 4, 2023
  33.  Jamboo Bhandari versus M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Crl. A 2741/2023 September 4, 2023
  34.  Life Insurance Corporation of India versus Dravya Finance Pvt Ltd, CA 4095/2012 September 6, 2023
  35.  Brihan Karan Sugar Syndicate Private Limited versus Yashwantrao Mohite, CA 2768/2023 September 14, 2023
  36.  Ajeet Gurjar versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A 3023/2023 September 26, 2023
  37.  Sharnappa versus State of Karnataka, Crl. A 1673/2011 October 4, 2023
  38.  Dharma versus State of Haryana, Crl. A 421/2011 October 5, 2023
  39.  GRIDCO versus Western Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd,  CA 414/2007 October 5, 2023
  40.  State of Rajasthan versus Gautam, Crl. A 3168/2023 October 11, 2023
  41.  Pankaj Kumar Tiwari versus Indian Overseas Bank, CA 6736/2023 October 13, 2023
  42.  Mohd. Rizwan versus State of Haryana, Crl. A 2350/2011 October 13 2023
  43.  Aarif versus State of Rajasthan, Crl. A 3172/2023 October 19, 2023
  44.  Shambhubai Kalabhai Raval versus State of Gujarat, Crl. A 06/2011 November 2, 2023
  45.  Thankamma Baby versus Regional Provident Fund Commission, Kochi, CA 4619/2010 November 7, 2023
  46.  Ramakant Singh versus State of Jharkhand,  Crl. A 3484/2023 November 7, 2023
  47.  Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi versus State of Gujarat, Crl. A 1926/2011 November 8, 2023
  48.  State of Uttar Pradesh versus Baleshwar, CA 3887/2023 November 9, 2023
  49.  Sweta Estate Pvt Ltd versus Haryana State Pollution Control Board, CA 2212/2020 November 10, 2023
  50.  Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd versus Mukul Aggarwal, CA 1544/2023 November 20, 2023
  51.  Suresh versus State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. A 3512/2023 November 24, 2023
  52.  Nababuddin versus State of Haryana, Crl. A 2333/2010 November 24, 2023
  53.  Chandrasekhar Patil versus Suresh, Crl. A 1162/2018 November 30, 2023
  54.  Mohit Singhal versus State of Uttarakhand, Crl. A 3578/2023 December 1, 2023
  55.  Surjit Singh versus State of Punjab, Crl. A 565/2012 December 7, 2023
  56.  Maheshwari Yadav versus State of Bihar, Crl. A 1515/2011 December 13, 2023

2024

  1.  Kanwar Raj Singh versus Gejo, CA 9098/2013 January 2, 2024
  2.  Ajeet Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. A 32/2024 January 3, 2024
  3.  Dr Balbir Singh Bhandari versus State of Uttarakhand, CA 5933/2023 January 10, 2024
  4.  Container Corp. of India Ltd. versus Ajay Khera, CA 3798/2019 January 11, 2024
  5.  Ansal Crown Heights Flat Buyers Association versus Ansal Crown Infrabuild Pvt Ltd, CA 4480/2023 January 17, 2024
  6.  Pramila versus State of Chhattisgarh, Crl. A 64/2012 January 17, 2024
  7.  Ramalingam versus K. Vishwanathan, Crl. A 212/2024 January 18, 2024
  8.  Krishan versus State of Haryana, Crl. A 2351/2011 January, 25 2024
  9.  Sheikh Arif versus State of Maharashtra, Crl. A 1368/2023 January 30, 2024
  10.  Kishore versus State of Punjab, Crl. A 1465/2011 February 7, 2024
  11.  Tejashwi Prasad Yadav versus Hareshbhai Pranshankar Mehta, Transfer P (Crl.) 846/2023 February 14, 2024
  12.  Shiv Jatia versus Gian Chand Malick, Crl. A 776/2024 February 23, 2024
  13.  Major Gen. Darshan Singh versus Brij Bhushan Chaudhary, CA 9360/2013 March 1, 2024
  14.  Murari Lal Chhari versus Munishwar Singh Tomar, Crl. A 1076/2024 March 4, 2024
  15.  Global Technologies and Research versus Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi (Import), CA 9385/2022 March 15, 2024  
  16.  M. Radheshyamlal versus V. Sandhya, CA 4322-4324/2023 March 18, 2024
  17.  Saree Sansar versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, CA 3774/2011 March 21, 2024
  18.  Amudha versus State, Crl. A 1642/2024 March 22, 2024
© 2021 The Leaflet