The Supreme Court recently quashed the verdict of a Madras High Court judge noting that the latter had delivered a detailed judgement 5 months after his retirement. The apex court also criticised the retired Judge T Mathivanan, stressing that a judge can’t retain case files after leaving office.
The apex court noted that in the present case, the judge who delivered the verdict had retained the case files for five months after his retirement. Notably, the Former Madras High Court judge had pronounced a one-line order in a criminal case and released the detailed judgement on the High Court website five months after he retired from service.
Supreme Court asserted that retaining the case file after demitting office is a “gross impropriety”. Consequently, the bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan remitted the appeal to the High Court for its fresh consideration.
Details of the case
In this criminal case, the then Madras High Court Justice T Mathivanan pronounced a one-line order that had the operative part in a criminal appeal on 17th April 2017. He demitted the office on 26th May 2017, but the detailed judgement with reasons was released by the judge only on 23rd October 2017, nearly five months after his retirement.
Later, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) approached the Supreme Court in the matter challenging the High Court’s verdict. The Central agency also highlighted that the judgement was pronounced after the judge’s retirement and used it as a ground to challenge the verdict.
The Supreme Court bench noted that there were five weeks available for the judge to release the reasoned judgement. It added, “However, the detailed judgement running into more than 250 pages has come out after a lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgement ready.”
The apex court criticised how the judge handled the case and the bench remarked, “It is obvious that even after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned reasons and made the judgement ready. According to us, retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance what has been done in this case.”
The bench cited the quote of Lord Hewart where he noted, “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.”
Setting aside the judgement of the Madras High Court judge, the Supreme Court added, “What has been done in this case is contrary to what Lord Hewart said. We cannot support such acts of impropriety and, therefore, in our view, the only option for this court is to set aside the impugned judgement and remit the cases to the high court for a fresh decision.”
Subsequently, the apex court bench refused to hear the case on merits and remitted the matter to the High Court for a fresh call. It added, “Needless to add that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy, and all issues are left open to be decided by the high court.”
