Supreme Court Criticizes Gujarat Tribunal’s Orders that ‘Shake Faith’ in Judiciary
The Supreme Court of India recently expressed its dismay over an order from the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal that it deemed shocking to the conscience of the judiciary. While a judicial error can be corrected, an order that undermines public trust in the legal system is a grave concern, the court noted in the case Dinesh Laljibhai Patel v. Girijaben.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, reviewed a petition contesting a September 2024 decision by the Gujarat High Court. This decision arose after the High Court discovered that the tribunal issued two contradictory rulings in cases filed by the same party concerning the same dispute. The conflicting judgments raised questions about the condonation of delays in pursuing the case.
Initially, the Gujarat High Court expressed its concerns, observing that the tribunal member had issued orders contrary to established legal principles. It subsequently sought the assistance of the Advocate General to address the problem. The Supreme Court, on May 22, criticized the tribunal’s approach to the two applications, with Justice Bagchi stating, “When you pass a wrong order, it is ok (it can be corrected). But when you pass a shocking order, it shakes the faith of people in the judiciary.”
The controversy centered around two orders by the in-charge chairman of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, dated April 2024 and May 2024. Both orders debated whether an appeal against a deputy collector’s 1996 ruling in a tenancy dispute was legitimate. The April 2024 order dismissed the appeal due to a lack of explanation for a 22-year delay in challenging the decision. Conversely, the May 2024 order accepted the delay without requiring any formal request for leniency.
Following the High Court’s identification of these conflicting tribunal orders, the Advocate General announced that the State was investigating the matter seriously. The High Court then annulled the contentious orders and instructed the State to place the tribunal member on administrative leave pending an assessment of the validity of his rulings. This directive was to be communicated to the tribunal member promptly as per the High Court’s September 2024 order, which also clarified that its observations were preliminary and not definitive regarding the member’s conduct or competency.
The tribunal member challenged this High Court order before the Supreme Court. His legal representative argued that the tribunal member, a retired district judge with an impeccable service record, was unfairly judged by the High Court for what they considered a human error. The counsel contended that judicial members can make mistakes and that the High Court should have limited itself to criticizing and overturning the disputed orders.
However, the Supreme Court emphasized the alarming nature of the error. It issued a notice to the respondents, seeking their response to the petition as the proceedings continue.
