2021 INSC 0263
REPORTABLE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.9404/2019
SUDIPTA CHAKROBARTY & ANR.                ….Appellant(s)
                                VERSUS
RANAGHAT S.D. HOSPITAL & ORS.            ….Respondent(s)
  O R D E R
In the present case, the reasoned order  was passed on
20.12.2019   by   the   National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal
Commission   (“National   Commission”   for   short)   in   C.A.
No.9404   of   2019.   A   fresh   civil   appeal   was   filed   before   this
Court being C.A. No.6476 of 2020, which has been dismissed
vide Order dated 06.3.2020.
This Court had   vide   Order dated 08.1.2020 directed the
Registrar   of   the   National   Commission   to   submit   a   Report
1

stating the number of cases in which reasoned judgments had
not   been   passed,   even   though   the   operative   order   had   been
pronounced in Court.  By the report dated 27.7.2020, we have
been   informed   that   as   on   20.12.2019,   there   were   85   such
cases   in  which   the  operative  order   had   been   pronounced,   but
reasoned judgments were not delivered so far. 
The   fact   which   has   been   brought   to   our   notice   by   the
Registrar   of   the   Commission   can,   in   no   manner,   be
countenanced   that   between   the   date   of   operative   portion   of
the   order   and   the   reasons   are   yet   to   be   provided,   or   the
hiatus period is much more than what has been observed to
be   the   maximum   time   period   for   even   pronouncement   of
reserved judgments.  In   State of Punjab & Ors.      Vs.      Jagdev
Singh   Talwandi   1984(1)   SCC   596   in   para   30,   the
Constitution   Bench   of   this   Court,   as   far   back   in   1983,   drew
the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties
which were caused on account of a practice which was being
adopted   by   the   adjudicating   authorities   including   High
Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative
2

part of the orders without supporting reasons. This was later
again discussed by this Court in  Anil Rai  Vs.  State of Bihar
2001(7) SCC 318.
Undisputedly,   the   rights   of   the   aggrieved   parties   are
being   prejudiced   if   the   reasons   are   not   available   to   them   to
avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the
reasons   can   be   scrutinized.     It   indeed   amounts   to   defeating
the   rights   of   the   party   aggrieved   to   challenge   the   impugned
judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable
to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.
The   afore­mentioned   principle   has   been   emphatically
restated   by   this   Court   on   several   occasions   including   in
Zahira  Habibulla   M.   Sheikh  &   Ors.   Vs.   State  of  Gujarat
&   Ors.   [AIR   2004   SC   3467   paras   80­82];   Mangat   Ram   Vs.
State of Haryana   [2008(7) SCC 96 paras 5­10];  Ajay Singh
&   Anr.   Etc.   Vs.   State   of   Chhattisgarh   &   Anr.   [AIR   2017
SC   310]   and   more   recently   in   Balaji   Baliram   Mupade   &
Anr.  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
3

3564   of   2020   pronounced   on   29.10.2020)   Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Zaixhu Xie & Ors.   (Civil Appeal No.
4022   of   2020   pronounced   on   11.12.2020)   and   SJVNL   Vs.
M/s.   CCC   HIM   JV   &   Anr.   (Civil   Appeal   No.   494   of   2021
pronounced on 12.02.2021)   wherein the delay in delivery of
judgments   has   been   observed   to   be   in   violation   of   Article   21
of the Constitution of India and the problems gets aggravated
when   the   operative   portion   is   made   available   early,   and   the
reasons   follow   much   later,   or   are   not   made   available   for   an
indefinite period.
In   the   instant   case,   the   operative   order   was
pronounced   on   26.04.2019,   and   in   the   reasons   disclosed,
there is a hiatus period of eight months.
Let   this   Order   be   placed   before   the   President   of   the
National   Consumer   Disputes   Redressal   Commission   to   look
into the matter, and take necessary steps so that this practice
is   discontinued,   and   the   reasoned   Judgment   is   passed
alongwith   the   operative   order.   We   would   like   to   observe   that
4

in   all   matters   where   reasons   are   yet   to   be   delivered,   it   must
be ensured that the same are made available to the litigating
parties positively within a period of two months.
With these observations, the Appeal stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………...............J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
…………..............J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
NEW DELHI;
15 th
 FEBRUARY, 2021
5