The Supreme Court recently observed that while a wrong judicial order can be corrected, an order that shocks the conscience of the court is an entirely different matter [Dinesh Laljibhai Patel v. Girijaben].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi was hearing petition challenging a September 2024 order of the Gujarat High Court.

In the said order, the High Court had expressed concerns that the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal had passed two "diametrically different" orders in two applications filed by the same person in connection with the same dispute,

The difference in view was apparent on the aspect of whether a delay in pursuing the case could be condoned.

The High Court had sought the Advocate General's assistance in the matter after noting that the tribunal member appeared to have passed orders that went against settled positions of law.

Commenting on the issue, the Supreme Court on May 22 said that it was shocked by the manner in which the tribunal member dealt with the two applications.

Addressing the tribunal member's counsel, Justice Bagchi said,

"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 matter concerned two orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's in-charge chairman, one from April 2024 and another from May 2024.

Both orders dealt with the issue of whether a challenge to a deputy collector's 1996 order in a tenancy dispute could be entertained.

In the April 2024 order, the tribunal declined to interfere with the deputy collector's decision, citing the absence of any explanation for the 22-year delay noticed in challenging the said decision.

However, the May 2024 order condoned the delay without any separate application for condonation being filed. Both revision applications were filed by the same party in connection with the same dispute.

These tribunal orders were challenged before the High Court the same year. After the High Court flagged the conflicting tribunal's conflicting orders, the Advocate General submitted that the State was examining the issue seriously at the highest level.

The High Court then proceeded to set aside the controversial orders. It also ordered the State to direct the tribunal member to go on administrative leave until the State examines whether his orders were justifiable or not. The said directive was to be communicated to the tribunal member during the course of the day, the High Court directed in its September 2024 order.

The High Court clarified its observations were prima facie and not to be treated as its final view on the member's conduct or competence.

This order then came to be challenged before the Supreme Court by the tribunal member in question.

His counsel told the top court on May 22 that the tribunal member was a retired district judge with a spotless service record. She added that she was not on the legality of the tribunal member's orders, adding that the High Court could have simply criticised and quashed the orders under challenge.

She submitted a judge with an otherwise blemish-less record was condemned by the High Court for a human error. Even judicial members can commit human errors, she argued.

The Court said that the error was shocking.

Nevertheless, it issued notice in the matter to the respondents and sought their response to the petition.