In a
recent ruling, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the practice of seeking
oral modifications to orders and judgments under the guise of a review. The
Court emphasized that judicial pronouncements must uphold "stability and
finality," citing its decision in Supertech Limited vs Emerald Court
Owner Resident Welfare Association.
A bench
comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma remarked
that "judicial verdicts are not like sand dunes, subject to the vagaries
of wind and weather."
Background of the Case
The
observations arose in a case where a single bench of the Karnataka High Court,
nearly three years after delivering an order, added an additional sentence
following an oral mention by one of the parties—without notifying the opposing
party. On appeal, the division bench of the High Court clarified the addition
made by the single bench. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.
At the
outset, the Supreme Court deemed it "wholly improper" for the
appellant to seek modification of an order three years later without filing a
formal application or notifying the respondents.
"We
also think it was judicially inappropriate for the learned Single Judge to
unilaterally accept an oral request and modify 'Paragraph 6' of the order dated
25.02.2013 by adding an additional sentence in an order dated 19.01.2016. Such
a procedure was legally flawed, violating established judicial practice and the
principles of natural justice," the Court observed.
The bench
strongly denounced this practice, stating, "We deplore such practices of
making oral mentions for modification of orders/judgments in the guise of a
review, as it circumvents the legal process of filing a review petition."
Supreme Court’s Decision
The
Supreme Court set aside the High Court orders and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on
the appellant, payable to the respondents.
Senior
Advocate S.N. Bhatt appeared for the appellant, while Senior Counsel Shailesh
Madiyal represented the respondents.
Case: C.S. Umesh v. T.V. Gangaraju
& Others
