Courts, Tribunals, Boards, Quasi-Judicial Authorities must mention names of officials who sign orders: Supreme Court

In compliance with the judgment of Supreme Court dated May 7, 2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 2411 of 2024 wherein certain directions have been issued to all the High Courts, the Registrar General of the Patna High Court has issued a circular dated September 24, 2024. The circular has been forwarded to the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India, Director, Bihar Judicial Academy, Patna and all District and Sessions Judges of Bihar for circulation amongst all the judicial officers working in their respective judgeships.

The Court's directions to all the High Courts is as under:-

1. In all the orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the Quasi-Judicial Authorities the names of the Presiding Officer and/or the Members who sign the orders shall be mentioned. In case any identification number has been given, the same can also be added.

2. The Presiding Officers and/or Members while passing the order shall properly record presence of the parties and/or their counsels, the purpose for which the matter is being adjourned and the party on whose behalf the adjournment has been sought and granted. It is therefore directed that necessary observance of the aforementioned directions should be strictly followed. Any deviation in this regard shall be viewed seriously.

In Child in Conflict with Law through his mother Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another, the Supreme Court' s bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal endorsed the view of Karnataka High Court which noted that "while signing the order sheet and also orders, the names of the Judicial Member as well as Non-judicial Members are not noted below their signatures. This is coming in the way of anyone knowing the names of the members who were present and who were absent. Therefore, only on the basis of signatures, this Court was able to distinguish as to who was the Non-Judicial Member present on 05.04.2022 and who was the third member who joined in expressing dissenting opinion on 12.04.2022. This Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to mention the names of the members below their signatures, which would also help the transparency in conduct of the said proceedings and put the members on guard about their roles played in the said proceedings.”

Supreme Court observed: "The High Court has noticed an important issue which arises in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings throughout the country. The Presiding Officers or Members of the Board, as the case in hand, or Tribunals do not mention their names when the order is passed. As a result of which it becomes difficult to find out later on, as to who was presiding the Court or Board or Tribunal or was the member at the relevant point of time. There may be many officers with the same name. Insofar as the judicial officers are concerned, unique I.D. numbers have been issued to them."

Its judgement reads : "We expect that wherever lacking, in all orders passed by the Courts, Tribunals, Boards and the quasi-judicial authorities, the names of the Presiding Officers or the Members be specifically mentioned in the orders when signed, including the interim orders. If there is any identification number given to the officers, the same can also be added." The 77 page long judgement was authored by Justice Bindal. 

He noted:"In many of the orders the presence of the parties and/or their counsels is not properly recorded. Further, it is not evident as to on whose behalf adjournment has been sought and granted. It is very relevant fact to be considered at different stages of the case and also to find out as to who was the party delaying the matter. At the time of grant of adjournment, it should specifically be mentioned as to the purpose therefor. This may be helpful in imposition of costs also, finally once we shift to the real terms costs."

The Registrar General''s circular has also drawn attention towards Patna High Court's letters No. 12449-12486, dated 22.02.20 24 and 36819-36855, dated 07.05.2024 for reference. 

Supreme Court's directions were passed while adjudicating in a matter under Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.