Opinion Words of the court

Although the Supreme Court’s ruling permitting the “recall” of an order dictated in open court affirms an existing practice among judges, it is important that courts use this power sparingly. The SC has suggested that courts can recall orders in the “interest of justice”. Indeed, when an error of law, or a previously unrepresented fact, is brought to the notice of courts, judges often modify their dictated orders, after which they are signed into existence. The court has rightly suggested that there is no “impediment” in the law to such “recall”. The Code of Civil Procedure, for instance, only prohibits the “alteration of or adding to” a judgment after it has been signed.

Orders dictated in open court, however, are the primary points of reference for litigants, making it imperative that judges exercise their right of recall — especially during these times, when appellate courts seem more prone to making sweeping oral observations — with great caution. In Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University and Others, the Supreme Court had made it clear that a judgment pronounced in open court becomes “operative” even without the signatures of judges, and alterations therefore must be made in exceptional circumstances. The court rightly observed in that case that the “confidence of litigants in the judicial process would be shaken” if what was pronounced in court was not acted upon. The SC’s verdict must not result in judges, especially in lower courts, disposing cases without due care and reason.

Advertisement

The rising trend of sharp and sometimes dramatic oral remarks from judges while hearing cases lends credence to such concerns. Courts of record are at liberty to haul up errant litigants and even censure lawyers, but it is a different matter to comment at length on the merits of a case in open session. These observations have routinely been misunderstood, both by the media and litigants, to be judicial orders. Courts should embrace judicial restraint, especially when the case at hand meanders into issues of policy. Given that their words carry great resonance, judges must be doubly careful while passing remarks, whether as observations or as orders. The power to recall operative judgments should not encourage adventurism in open court.