"Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth": Supreme Court

On January 8, 2025, in Om Prakash @ Israel @Raju @Raju Das vs. Union of India (2025), the Supreme Court's bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Arvind Kumar, the Court recalled the words of Lord Atkin in United Australia Limited v. Barclay’s Bank Ltd (1941), …"When these ghosts of the past stand in the path of justice clanking their medieval chains the proper course for the judge is to pass through them undeterred.” The judgement was authored by Justice Sundresh. 

The Court examined how the person was wrongly tried as a juvenile. The defence of his juvenile status could be raised even after conviction. It allowed the Appeal saying, "The impugned judgment stands set aside" refering to the judgement of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma of Uttarakhand High Court dated August 23, 2019. 

Supreme Court's judgement states "the sentence imposed against the Appellant in excess of the upper limit prescribed under the relevant Act, shall stand set aside, while making it clear that the conviction shall continue. The Appellant shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case." The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 is the relevant Act which replaced the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. But prior to that Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 addressed the issue of juvenile justice. 

The appellant was charged for the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. The incident took place on November 15, 1994. 

A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), 1973 was recorded by the trial Court. It stated that his age was 20 years, as on March 7, 2001. 

After his conviction, the appellant, an illiterate raised the plea of juvenility during the hearing on sentence by stating that he was about 17 years of age at the time of the incident. Assuming his status as as a major with reference to his bank account, the trial Court sentenced him to death. n The High Court too did not refer the case to Juvenile Court refusing to give him the benefit of being a juvenile. But relying on his bank account and the cheque book endorsed the order of the 

trial Court. 

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the appellant placed reliance upon the birth certificate issued by the Dariya Para Bodinath Board School dated April 28, 2001, agreed with the High Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellant filed a Review Petition, reiterating the fact that he was a minor at the time of the offence. It was also pointed out that it was appellant's deceased employer who filled the details to open his bank account. The Review Petition was dismissed. After the dismissal, a Mercy Petition was rejected by Governor of Uttarakhand. 

A Writ Petition was filed before the Supreme Court by the appellant’s parents and social worker under Article 32 of the Constitution. A copy of the school certificate dated June 19, 2003 from the headmaster and a transfer certificate dated April 28, 2001 was filed. This Writ Petition was dismissed on February 16, 2005 with liberty to invoke the curative jurisdiction of the Court. A Curative Petition was filed. A counter affidavit to the Curative Petition of Respondent No. 2 produced another certificate dated January 7, 2006 issued by the Dariya Para Bodinath Board School, after verifying the school certificate which reiterated the fact that the appellant was 14 years of age on the date of the incident. This Curative Petition was also dismissed by an order of the Supreme Court dated February 6, 2006.

After the amendment incorporating Section 7A into the 2000 Act, the appellant’s mother filed a Mercy Petition before the President of India. During the pendency of the Mercy Petition, the 2007 Rules came into effect. Notably, an ossification test of the appellant was done by a Medical Board constituted by the Meerut Jail, on a request made by the appellant by way of an application. The Medical Age Certificate issued therein also indicated that the Appellant was aged around 14 years at the time of the occurrence. 

Significantly, by the Presidential Order dated May 8, 2012, the death sentence of the appellant was commuted to life imprisonment, with a caveat that he shall not be released until the attainment of 60 years of age. An application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was filed by the appellant, through which information was obtained from the bank that any minor above 10 years of age can have an independent bank account, provided he knew how to read and write, and also that no cheque book was issued for the bank account opened in the name of the appellant. 

Subsequently, a Curative Petition filed by the appellant was also rejected by the Registry as not maintainable. 

In 2019, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, laying a challenge to the Presidential Order while seeking yet another relief on the basis of Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act. This Writ Petition was dismissed by the High Court. It held that the power of judicial review over an executive order passed in exercise of Article 72 of the Constitution is limited, and the proceedings against the appellant had attained finality. 

The appellant approached the Supreme Court. Taking note of the background of the case, the Court observed: "Suffice it is to state that merits were not gone into in view of the clear stand of the State on the age of the Appellant."

The appellant was represented by Senior Counsel, Dr. S. Muralidhar. He submitted that the High Court committed an error in not considering the independent prayer sought for by the Appellant. It is not in dispute that the age of the Appellant was 14 years at the time of commission of the offence. There is no judicial finality attained and the phrase “any stage” used in Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act must be given an extended meaning. There is no contrary finding given against the appellant vis-à-vis the plea of juvenility, which he has raised at every stage. It is a case where grave injustice has been meted out, as can be demonstrated by the lack of adjudication. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for immediate release. The appellant has been unfairly kept under incarceration including the earlier solitary confinement It is untenable and illegal. The appellant should be adequately compensated for the loss of formative years suffered by him in the prison.

He drew the attention of the Court towards decisions wherein it was held that Section 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 can be invoked even after the final disposal of the case. This was held in Ram Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 17 SCC 699 and Hari Dutt Sharma v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Order of the Supreme Court dated February 7, 2022 in Writ Petition (Crl.) 367 of 2021.

It has been held that beneficial and retrospective applicability of change in law post the dismissal of the Curative Petition on February 6, 2006 in Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 13 SCC 211, Abdul Razzaq v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 637 and T Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe and another, (1983) 1 SCC 177.

It has been held that claim of juvenility can be raised and considered even after the President has exercised powers under Article 72, Constitution of India in Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204 and Ram Deo Chauhan v. Bani Kanta Das, (2010) 14 SCC 209. 

Justice M.M. Sundresh observed: "We are dealing with a case where grave injustice has been perpetrated, on account of the consistent failure on part of the judicial machinery to recognise and act upon the constitutional mandate vis-a-vis the plea of juvenility". 

The Court was reminded of the words of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in Jasraj Inder Singh vs. Hemraj Multanchand (1977). “Truth, like song, is whole and half-truth can be noise;Justice is truth, is beauty and the strategy of healing injustice is discovery of the whole truth and harmonising human relations. Law's finest hour is not in meditating on abstractions but in being the delivery agent of full fairness. This divagation is justified by the need to remind ourselves that the grammar of justice according to law is not little litigative solution….”

Justice Sundresh observed: "Justice is nothing but a manifestation of the truth. It is truth which transcends every other action. The primary duty of a Court is to make a single-minded endeavour to unearth the truth hidden beneath the facts. Thus, the Court is a search engine of truth, with procedural and substantive laws as its tools. When procedural law stands in the way of the truth, the Court must find a way to circumvent it. Similarly, when substantive law, as it appears, does not facilitate the emergence of the truth, it is the paramount duty of the Court to interpret the law in light of its teleos. Such an exercises is warranted in a higher degree, particularly while considering a social welfare legislation.In its journey, the Court must discern the truth, primarily from the material available on record in the form of pleadings, and arguments duly supported by documents. It must be kept in mind that the entire judicial system is meant for the discovery of the truth, it being the soul of decision. For doing so, a Presiding Officer is expected to play an active role, rather than a passive one."

He observed: "At every stage, injustice has been inflicted by the Courts, either by ignoring the documents or by casting a furtive glance. The Appellant despite being illiterate, raised this plea one way or another, right from the trial Court up to the conclusion of the Curative Petition before this Court. The approach of the Courts in the earlier round of litigation cannot be sustained in the eye of law. There can be no reliance on the statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, 1973 particularly when the Appellant was asked to give his particulars for the purpose of recording his statement. Even the said statement shows that he was 20 years of age at the time of making his deposition, which could only mean that he was 14 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. The bank account has no relevance under the Acts and the relevant rules, and in any case, it is to be proved, though not contemplated under Rule 12 of the 2007 Rules. The statement given by the Appellant at the time of the hearing on his sentence, would also pale into insignificance, as even then he would have been a minor at the time of commission of the offence, under both the 2000 and the 2015 Acts." 

The judgement reads: "Though the 2000 Act was already enacted before the Appellant’s conviction, even assuming that only the 1986 Act was in vogue, the procedural mandate contemplated thereunder was also not followed by the trial Court and the High Court. Before this Court, the Appellant had relied upon the school certificate in the Criminal Appeal. It was once again relied upon in the Review Petition. Thereafter, additional documents were relied upon by the Appellant in the Writ Petition and also in the Curative Petition which was subsequently filed. In the Curative Petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the State certifying the documents furnished by the Appellant to be true. Nonetheless, the said petition was dismissed without according any reason." 

The judgement points out that "even the then existing State Rules were not duly followed, and if followed, the same would have ensured to the benefit of the Appellant." 

The Court observed:"We would only say that when the plea of juvenility was raised, it should have been dealt with under the existing laws at the relevant point of time, especially when there exists a tacit and clear admission as to the age of the Appellant. In fact, there is no need for such an inquiry in view of the aforesaid position. In our considered view, this Court could have dealt with the Writ Petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, as it raised an independent prayer for the enforcement of a right conferred under a social welfare legislation. In the subsequent Writ Petition filed before the High Court, two different prayers had been made, namely, the determination of the appellant’s plea of juvenility and consequent release, or alternatively, judicial review of the decision of the President or the Governor and consequent release. As the Executive cannot be construed to have undertaken an adjudication on the determination of the age of the accused, and with the first prayer being a distinct one invoking Section 9(2) of the 2015 Act, we feel that the High Court has committed an error in its reasoning. We would only state that this is a case where the Appellant has been suffering due to the error committed by the Courts."

The judgement makes it clear that "It cannot be construed that the Presidential Order is interfered with, as the issue that we are concerned with, is the failure of the Court in not applying the mandatory provisions of the 2015 Act with specific reference to the plea of juvenility. Therefore, it is not a review of the Presidential Order, but a case of giving the benefit of the provisions of the 2015 Act to a deserving person."

The Court recorded:"We have been informed that his conduct in the prison is normal, with no adverse report. He lost an opportunity to reintegrate into the society. The time which he has lost, for no fault of his, can never be restored."

The Court observed:"From the custody certificate filed on record, it appears that the Appellant has undergone imprisonment for almost 25 years, during which time, the society has undergone significant transformation which the Appellant might be unaware of and find difficult to adjust with."

The Court directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to play a proactive role in identifying any welfare scheme of the State/Central Government, to facilitate the appellant’s rehabilitation and smooth reintegration into the society upon his release, with particular emphasis on his right to livelihood, shelter and sustenance guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also directed the State Authority to assist him in availing any such scheme under which he is found eligible and wishes to avail, and such assistance may be effected through the concerned District Legal Services Authority, if the State Authority finds the same expedient and necessary. 

It is crystal clear that justice has been delayed. The appellant's senior counsel had prayed for adequate compensation  for the loss of formative years suffered by him in the prison. But the Court has not awarded him any compensation. It emerges that in the absence of compensation for the appellant, he has recieved partial justice. He awaits complete justice even after more than two decades. 

Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 prevails over personal laws: Supreme Court

In Society for Enlightenment and Voluntary Action vs. Union of India and Others (2024), Supreme Court has passed the following directions:-"1. Empowering Magistrates to Take Suo Moto Action and Issue Preventive Injunctions
1.1.All Magistrates vested with authority under Section 13 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, are directed to take proactive measures, including issuing suo motu injunctions to prevent the solemnization of child marriages; and
1.2.Magistrates are encouraged to particularly focus on "auspicious days" known for mass weddings, when the occurrence of child marriages is notably high. Upon receiving credible information or even upon suspicion, Magistrates should use their judicial powers to halt such marriages and ensure child protection."

The judgment was delivered on October 18, 2024 by a 3-judge bench of 50th chief justice of India, Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra. The 141-page long judgement was authored by Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud.  

Notably, the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amending) Bill 2021 was introduced in Parliament on December 21, 2021. The Bill was referred for examination to the Department Related Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth and Sports. The Bill sought to amend the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 to expressly state the overriding effect of the statute over various personal laws. The issue, therefore, is pending consideration before Parliament. 

In such a backdrop, it is quite significant that Union of India in its submission before the Supreme Court has stated after the judgment was reserved in the case that "this Court may direct that the PCMA prevails over personal law." The note of the Union states as follows: “9. As a way forward, Ministry of Women & Child Development has following inputs to provide for kind consideration of the Hon’ble Court –i. There are conflicting pronouncements by various High Courts about the precedence of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006 over the personal laws. Hence, Hon’ble Court may consider issuing directions pronouncing that the PCMA will prevail over the personal laws governing marriage.…” 

The Court observed: "we note that while the PCMA seeks to prohibit child marriages, it does not stipulate on betrothals. Marriages fixed in the minority of a child also have the effect of violating their rights to free choice, autonomy, agency and childhood. It takes away from them their choice of partner and life paths before they mature and form the ability to assert their agency. International law such as CEDAW stipulates against betrothals of minors. Parliament may consider outlawing child betrothals which may be used to evade penalty under the PCMA. While a betrothed child may be protected as a child in need of care and protection under the JJ Act, the practice also requires targeted remedies for its elimination." JJ Act refers to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. CEDAW refers to Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women which was adopted in 1979 and came into force in 1981. India ratified CEDAW on July 9, 1993.

The concluding paragraph of the judgement reads:"A copy of this Judgment will be transmitted to the Secretaries of all concerned Ministries, the Government of India which includes the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Ministry of Rural Development, statutory authorities, institutions, and organizations under the control of the respective ministries. The Ministry of Women and Child Development is directed to circulate this judgment to the Chief Secretaries/Administrators of all the States and Union Territories, as well as NALSA, and NCPCR for strict compliance with the directions. This shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of delivery of this judgment."

In compliance with the judgement, Patna High Court's Registrar General has issued a Circular No.7 of 2024 for necessary observance of the aforementioned directions which should be strictly followed. A copy of the circular has been forwarded to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice, Jaisalmer House, 26 Mansingh Road, New Delhi, Director, Bihar Judicial Academy, Patna and Member Secretary, Bihar State Legal Services Authority, Patna. The circular states that All the Principal District and Sessions Judges of Bihar are supposed  to circulate this circular order amongst all the Judicial Officers working in their respective Judgeships for its strict compliance.

 

Bengal Police complies with Supreme Court's recommendations for adoption of Delhi Model to stop bias against disadvantaged communities

Before approaching the Supreme Court, Amanatullah Khan, the appellant had approached Delhi High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the ‘History Sheet’ opened against him and the proposal to declare him as ‘Bad Character’ with the entry of his name in the Surveillance ‘Register-X, Part II, Bundle A’ at Police Station Jamia Nagar, District: South-East, Delhi. Judge Sudhir Kumar Jain of Delhi High Court had dismissed the appellant’s writ petition by judgment dated January 19, 2023. The High Court's judgement reads: "The present petition is devoid of any merit, hence dismissed. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a representation for deletion/cancellation of his name from Surveillance Register X in accordance with Rules and Law which shall be decided by the respondents in accordance with law without any delay."

The case was filed in the apex court on April 17, 2023. Supreme Court's bench of Justices Surya Kant and K.V. Viswanathan modified the impugned judgment of the High Court by its judgement dated May 7, 2024. It has directed that all the State Governments should take necessary preventive measures to safeguard against inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment of individuals from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes by mechanical entries of innocent individuals in the History Sheet. 

Supreme Court has recorded in its judgement that the amended Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi which pertains to ‘Surveillance of History Sheeters and Bad Characters’. The Original Standing order was issued on June 10, 2022 and paragraph 9(2) thereof titled as “Preparation of History Sheet” was replicated from provisions of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. By the amended Standing Order issued on March 21, 2024,  the Commissioner of Police has provided as follows:
“The space for “relation and connection” should be filled in with a view to afford clues about those persons with whom the criminal is likely to harbour when wanted by the police, including relations or friends living at a distance from his home, and his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. It may be noted that the space for “relations and connections” in the history sheet should reflect identities of those persons who can afforded him shelter when the offender is running/wanted by the police (in general) and should include his associates in crime, abettors and receivers (in particular) and no details of any minor relatives i.e. son, daughter, siblings should be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that the minor under question can, or has earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender, “while he was on run from police”. While preparing History Sheet, it may also be kept in mind that as per Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, there is a prohibition on disclosing the Identity of a child in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection of a child victim or witness of a crime through a report etc. Even though the History Sheet is an internal Police document and not a publicly accessible report, care must be taken that identities of only those minor relatives are entered into the History Sheet against whom evidence exists that minor in question has earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender, while he was on run from police”. In addition to above, the particular nature of each person’s connection should be noted against each, and, when persons shown as connections themselves have history sheets, a cross reference with those History Sheets should be given. Maximum phone numbers/mobile numbers or associates/relatives/acquaintances of BCs should be collected and placed for record. Aadhar Number, EPIC number, e-mail ID, social media accounts/profiles viz, facebook, Instagram ID, Twitter ID etc. to be placed on file. Further mobile numbers & other available details of associates/relatives/acquaintance of BC should be collected and placed on record.”

In view of the above, the Supreme Court directed the police authorities to give effect to is the amended Standing Order dated March 21, 2024 in the appellant’s case as well.  It also directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to designate a senior police officer, in the rank of Joint Commissioner of Police or above, who shall periodically audit/review the contents of the History Sheets and will ensure confidentiality and a leeway to delete the names of such persons/juvenile/children who are, in the course of investigation, found innocent and are entitled to be expunged from the category of “relations and connections” in a History Sheet. If a Police Officer of Delhi Police is found to have acted contrary to the amended Standing Order and or the directions given herein above, prompt action against such delinquent officer shall be taken. 

In exercise of its suo motu powers, the bench of Justices Surya Kant and Viswanathan expanded the scope of the proceedings in para 14-16 of the judgement "so that the police authorities in other States and Union Territories may also consider the desirability of ensuring that no mechanical entries in History Sheet are made of innocent individuals, simply because they happen to hail from the socially, economically and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds, along with those belonging to Backward Communities, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes. While we are not sure about the degree of their authenticity, but there are some studies available in the public domain that reveal a pattern of an unfair, prejudicial and atrocious mindset. It is alleged that the Police Diaries are maintained selectively of individuals belong to Vimukta Jatis, based solely on caste-bias, a somewhat similar manner as happened in colonial times. All the State Governments are therefore expected to take necessary preventive measures to safeguard such communities from being subjected to inexcusable targeting or prejudicial treatment. We must bear in mind that these pre-conceived notions often render them ‘invisible victims’ due to prevailing stereotypes associated with their communities, which may often impede their right to live a life with self-respect." The Court observed: "The value for human dignity and life is deeply embedded in Article 21 of our Constitution. The expression ‘life’ unequivocally includes the right to live a life worthy of human honour and all that goes along with it. Self-regard, social image and an honest space for oneself in one’s surrounding society, are just as significant to a dignified life as are adequate food, clothing and shelter. It seems that a periodic audit mechanism overseen by a senior police officer, as directed for the NCT of Delhi, will serve as a critical tool to review and scrutinize the entries made, so as to ascertain that these are devoid of any biases or discriminatory practices. Through the effective implementation of audits, we can secure the elimination of such deprecated practices and kindle the legitimate hope that the right to live with human dignity, as guaranteed."

The Court's judgement reads:"We, therefore, deem it appropriate, at this stage, to direct all the States/Union Territories to revisit their policy-regime and consider whether suitable amendments on the pattern of the ‘Delhi Model’ are required to be made so that our observations made in paragraphs 14 to 16 of this order can be given effect in true letter and spirit. The Registry is, accordingly, directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Chief Secretary and Director General of Police of all States and Union Territories to enable them to consider and comply with what has been held above, as early as possible but not later than six months."

In compliance with these recommendations of the Court, Bengal Police has issued guidelines on "disclosing identities of individuals connected with the offender in the history sheet" on October 24, 2024 before the expiry of six months deadline. This requires amendment in the Police Regulations of Bengal (PRB), 1943. The regulation 401 (a) of PRB states: "History sheets shall contain a short account of the life of the person to whom they relate and all facts likely to have a bearing on his criminal history. They shall be opened only for persons who are, or are likely to become, habitual criminals or the aiders or abettors of such criminals." Other States are yet to comply with the Supreme Court's directions of May 2024.

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.