Are judges not entitled to change mind before signing orders? asks Justice Subramaniam of Madras High Court

Madras High Court judges question signing orders in open court, decide to rehear case for fair opportunity.

Justice S.M. Subramaniam of the Madras High Court on Tuesday (September 3, 2024) asked whether judges are not entitled to refrain from signing an order dictated in open court and decide to rehear the case, by giving due opportunity to the litigants to make their submissions, before taking a final decision.

He raised the question, while presiding over a Division Bench along with Justice V. Sivagnanam, after former Director General of Police (DGP) M.S. Jaffar Sait questioned as to how his petition could be listed for rehearing after the judges had dictated orders in favour of him, in a money laundering case, on August 21.

Representing the retired DGP, senior counsel T. Mohan, cited various Supreme Court verdicts to drive home his point that a verdict dictated in open court could not be nullified, unless there were exceptional circumstances, and that signing of a judgement was only a formality.

However, Justice Subramaniam told the senior counsel that when the present petition for quashing a 2020 Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) came up for hearing on August 21, only a junior counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and sought an adjournment.

Then, the ED Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) N. Ramesh brought it to the notice of the court that a case booked against the retired DGP by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC) in 2011, for the predicate offence of obtaining irregular allotment of Tamil Nadu Housing Board plots in 2009, had got quashed in 2019.

It was after recording the submission of the SPP, the judges had dictated orders stating that the ECIR could also be quashed. However, later, they found that the ECIR need not be necessarily quashed in every other case where the case for predicate offence had been quashed and therefore decided to rehear the matter on merits.

The Registry was directed to list the matter for re-hearing on August 23 in order to give a fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as the ED to make their submissions on the merits of the case. The petitioner’s counsel appeared on August 23 and obtained an adjournment till August 28.