Supreme Court Mandate: Scrutinize Legal Validity of Advocates' "Minutes of Order" Before Passing Judgments

In a groundbreaking verdict, the Supreme Court recently brought attention to the customary submission of “Minutes of Order” by advocates in the Bombay High Court. These minutes, a practice prevalent in the court, serve as aides memoire submitted by legal representatives from both sides, outlining the key points to be incorporated in the court’s judgment.

While ostensibly intended to assist the judiciary, the Supreme Court issued a cautionary note, emphasizing the need to safeguard the rights of third parties against potential ramifications arising from judgments based solely on these submitted minutes. Moreover, it urged the High Court to meticulously assess the legality of the proposed orders outlined in the “Minutes of Order” before endorsing them.

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, articulated several pivotal observations regarding this prevalent practice:

a) Advocates commonly submit “Minutes of Order” to the Bombay High Court, as a gesture of cooperation with the judiciary, offering suggested points to be included in the court’s judgment, thereby aiming to facilitate the court’s decision-making process.

b) It clarified that an order rendered in line with the submitted “Minutes of Order” does not constitute a consent order but rather an involuntary order with legal consequences.

c) Prior to presenting the “Minutes of Order” to the court, advocates are tasked with ensuring the legality of the proposed order. Subsequently, it becomes the court’s responsibility to ascertain the lawfulness of such orders and whether all pertinent parties have been duly involved in the proceedings.

d) Should the court determine that an order based on the submitted “Minutes of Order” would be unlawful, it is incumbent upon the court to refrain from endorsing such an order.

e) In instances where the court discerns that all relevant parties have not been party to the proceedings, it is prudent for the court to defer issuing any order until all necessary parties are included.

In a specific case before the Bombay High Court, concerning the authorization for the construction of a compound wall under police protection, the court relied on the submitted “Minutes of Order” by advocates. However, objections raised by government officials and the omission of affected parties were disregarded. Despite these reservations, the Division Bench upheld the order without providing substantive rationale, prompting an appeal.

In response, the Supreme Court deemed the High Court’s order illegitimate, remanding the matter for reconsideration. It granted provisional permission for the construction to proceed under police supervision, pending the final decision in the Writ Petition.