Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Rimpa Saha vs. District Primary School Council Malda, 2025

The importance of oral consent in Judicial Proceedings.

Supreme Court·20 January 2025

Constitution of India

Court

Supreme Court

Date of Decision

20 January 2025

Judges

Justice Abhay S. Oka ⦁ Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The case revolves around a service matter related to the recruitment process conducted in 2009 by the District Primary School Council (DPSC), Malda.
The DPSC had conducted the recruitment, and some candidates, including Rimpa Saha, had filed writ petitions regarding alleged irregularities in the recruitment process.
On April 26, 2024, the Calcutta High Court passed an order based on the oral consent of the counsel representing all parties, including DPSC, granting relief to the petitioners. The order stated that the candidates who participated in the 2009 recruitment and filed writ petitions by April 25, 2024, would be entitled to appointments against existing or future vacancies.
However, DPSC, Malda, filed a review petition challenging the April 26 order, arguing that there was no written consent for the order.
On September 25, 2024, the Calcutta High Court allowed the review petition, citing the lack of written consent, and recalled the April 26 order.
The matter then reached the Supreme Court, where the core issue was whether the order could be reviewed solely on the grounds of the absence of written consent.

Whether the Calcutta High Court was right in reviewing and recalling the April 26, 2024 order solely because the consent for that order was not in writing, despite the fact that the oral consent was explicitly recorded?
The broader issue of the validity of oral consent recorded in constitutional courts and whether orders can be recalled based solely on the lack of written consent?

The Supreme Court noted that constitutional courts, including the High Court, often accept oral statements made by counsel on behalf of parties during proceedings. The Court emphasized that oral consent, when expressly recorded, holds legal validity and should not be disregarded just because it was not in written form.
The Calcutta High Court’s review of the order was based on an erroneous premise that the absence of written consent invalidated the consent already recorded in the court's order. This was a misinterpretation of the law, as oral consent is equally binding.
Justice Oka pointed out the potential dangers of disregarding oral statements in court, which could undermine the integrity of judicial processes and result in unnecessary procedural hurdles.
By setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s review order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of oral consent in judicial matters, stressing that it is a longstanding practice in Indian constitutional courts.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

This judgment reinforces the importance of oral consent in judicial proceedings. It clarifies that oral statements made by counsel on behalf of their clients, when recorded in court, are legally valid and cannot be dismissed based on the lack of a written document.
The judgment protects the rights of the petitioners (Rimpa Saha and others) by ensuring that their case is not delayed or dismissed due to procedural issues like the absence of written consent, thus upholding the principles of fairness and justice.
This decision also highlights the efficiency and practicality of oral consent in the legal system, promoting quicker resolutions in cases where the consent of the parties is clear, even if not formalized in writing. This reduces unnecessary formalities in judicial procedures and helps expedite justice delivery.