Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The case Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024 INSC 801) addressed before the Supreme Court highlights significant concerns regarding judicial accountability, prompt judgement delivery and adherence to procedural standards by the judges of the High Court. The Appellant Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar challenged the order issued by the Deputy Collector of Kamrej Prant. The Supreme Court on 21st October, 2024 allowed the appeal and set aside the judgement of Gujarat High Court.

Download Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat PDF

Why in the Spotlight? - Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The Supreme Court in this case addressed judicial accountability, prompt judgement delivery and adherence to procedural standards by the judges of the High Court.

Historical Context and Facts of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The case centres around the Appellants Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and others who filed an appeal under Section 109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated 1st March 2023 adjudicated by the Gujarat High Court.

Background and Facts of the Case

Initially the Appellants filed a Special Civil Application before the Gujarat High Court under Article 227 of the Indian Constitution and challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Kamrej, Surat District. The appellants contended that a previous decision regarding allotments made by the Mamlatdar was erroneous. 

High Court’s Oral Dismissal

The High Court in March 2023 orally dismissed the petition of the Appellants and no written order or reasons were provided for the dismissal of the petition.

Expectation of a Reasoned Judgement

The Appellants expected that a reasoned judgement would be made available soon after the oral dismissal so that they could understand the rationale behind the judgement and consider their legal options for appeal.

Deferral of the Judgement

No written order was received by the Appellants until 30th April 2024 when they were provided with a soft copy of the judgement dated 1st March 2023. It was also argued by the Appellants that the judgement was backdated.

Legal Action by the Appellant

Aggrieved by the delay and backdating of judgement the Appellants approached the Supreme Court and challenged the actions of the High Court of Gujarat. The Appellants contended that the delay and backdating of the judgement violated their rights to fair judicial procedures.

Issue addressed in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The main question which was addressed in this case was whether the delay in the pronouncement of the judgement by the Gujarat High Court along with the backdating of the judgement constitutes a violation of the right to a fair judicial process of the Appellant?

Legal Provisions involved in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

In a recent Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar case Article 21 of the Indian Constitution played a significant role. The following is the legal analysis of this provision -

Article 21 of the Constitution of India

Article 21 deals with protection of life and personal liberty. It states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

Judgment and Impact of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar vs State of Gujarat (2024)

The Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta examined the timeline and legal issues stemming from the delayed delivery of the written judgement. The Court expressed grave concern over the delay of over a year in issuing the reasoned judgement. The Court noted that such delays compromise the efficiency of the judiciary. 

The Supreme Court referred to precedents like Anil Rai vs State of Bihar and Balaji Baliram Mupade vs State of Maharashtra. The Court bolstered the established principle that delays in delivering judgments infringes the right to speedy justice which is a fundamental aspect of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The Court observed that the extended delay in issuing the written judgement after the verbal decision led to uncertainty and injustice for the involved parties.

The Supreme Court cited the case of Vinod Kumar Singh vs Banaras Hindu University where the Court held that delays infringe upon the right of the litigant to a fair hearing. It highlighted that the delay could cause prejudice to the litigants by impacting their ability to file an appeal within the statutory limitation period.

The Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the High Court of Gujarat to draft the judgement over a year later and backdate it to March 2023 compromised the integrity of the judicial process.

The Court regarding the backdating of the judgement deemed it procedurally wrong and criticised the High Court of Gujarat for compromising judicial transparency by backdating the judgement to 1st March 2023 when the reasons were only dictated in April 2024. The Supreme Court stressed that the judiciary must avoid actions that could be seen as insincere or worse or misconduct.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar case set aside the judgement of the High Court of Gujarat and allowed the appeal. The Supreme Court ordered the case to be reassigned for fresh consideration. It expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in the delivery of the judgement. The Court highlighted that such delays could damage public trust in the judiciary and infringes the fundamental right under Article 21.