corporate law
The recent oral remarks made by the vacation bench of the Apex Court in the Nupur Sharma case have ignited discussions among scholars regarding the significance of such comments during legal proceedings, especially as they do not appear in the final judgment. The debate centers on whether courts ought to express opinions orally or reserve these for written judgments. A critical point of concern is whether these high-profile oral remarks could bias her case when it returns to the lower judiciary.
Given that the matter is currently sub-judice, commenting on courtroom proceedings may be inappropriate. Nonetheless, the immediate reactions and criticisms of the court's remarks have been widely reported in the media, resulting in palpable discontent among the public.
The pivotal question at hand is whether oral observations form an integral part of the judgment or if only the written judgment carries legal authority. Legally, the reasoning provided by a court to support its decision constitutes the essence of a judgment. According to Section 2(9) of the Civil Procedure Code, the term ‘Judgment’ is defined as follows:
“Judgment means the statement given by the judge on the ground of a decree or order. A judgment is said to be the final decision of the court on the said matter before the court in the form of suit towards parties and to the world at large by formal pronouncement in open court. Order 20, Rule 4(2) clarifies that a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and all the reasons for such decision.”
This definition emphasizes that reasoning is a central component of any judgment; consequently, a judgment lacking reasoning is not recognized as valid in the eyes of the law. Since the official judgment does not address oral observations made during proceedings, these comments are not considered binding for the involved parties or lower courts. It is evident that a judiciary's opinions are articulated only through formal judgments and orders, not informal remarks.
Judges communicate through their judgments. While oral comments made by judges during hearings may give insight into their thoughts, these remarks hold no legal weight unless they are included in a formal written order. Thus, oral observations or comments made during court sessions lack legal sanctity and may be viewed as informal remarks that can compromise the constitutional authority and trust in the judiciary.
It is pertinent to reference George Mikes' article "Professional Deformities," which emphasizes that judges should refrain from delivering "sermons on the mount." Judicial propriety calls for judges to minimize casual remarks during court proceedings. Such informal expressions can detract from established judicial conduct. The integrity of the judicial process must be upheld, ensuring that well-reasoned, thoroughly researched views are expressed in formal judgments.
Therefore, it is crucial for judges to refrain from engaging in debates within the courtroom and to fulfill their responsibilities solely through objective judicial pronouncements rather than through casual speeches. This expectation is grounded in the well-recognized principles of judicial etiquette and the foundational trust placed in judges by the constitution.
In conclusion, the discourse surrounding oral observations in the judiciary underscores the necessity for clarity in judicial expression. Upholding stringent standards for what constitutes a valid legal opinion is vital for maintaining the authority and integrity of the judicial system. Emphasizing written judgments and reasoned conclusions can help avoid potential biases and preserve the sanctity of legal proceedings.