The Orissa High Court has clearly stated that when a Division Bench dictates an order in open court, any judge intending to differ must immediately voice or indicate their dissent in the same forum. Failure to do so will be taken as agreement with the pronounced judgment.
"If a judge remains silent during the open pronouncement of the order, it becomes the collective decision of the bench," the Court emphasized.
Read Also:- Orissa High Court Cancels Death Sentence Over Unfair Trial In Minor's Rape-Murder Case, Orders Fresh Trial
This observation came in the case concerning Malaya Ranjan Dash, a senior judicial officer who faced disciplinary action for registering a suo moto writ petition based on an order passed by a Division Bench. The issue revolved around whether a dissenting judgment, expressed days after the main order was dictated in open court, holds legal ground.
Background of the Case
On February 26, 2021, while serving as the Registrar General of the High Court, Dash acted on an order from a Division Bench, which was handed over to him with a note from the Deputy Registrar. The order instructed him to provide its copy to Amicus Curiae. To fulfill this direction, he registered a suo moto case.
However, this was done without the approval of the Chief Justice, who later expressed discontent. Dash was transferred and faced a show-cause notice. He was also given a copy of the order in question, which surprisingly included a dissenting note from the junior judge—dated March 2, 2021, several days after the main order was dictated in open court.
Dash argued that when he received the order, there was no indication of dissent. The dissent only appeared later, raising concerns about whether the dissenting opinion had any standing.
Court's Findings
The Court reviewed original records and found that the senior judge had dictated the order in open court on February 24, 2021. The junior judge neither voiced any disagreement nor dictated a separate dissent at that time.
“A judgment/order pronounced in open court should be treated as the court’s operative pronouncement unless an immediate dissent is recorded,” the Court stated.
Dash had already acted on the dictated order, allegedly after a phone consultation with the senior judge. Only after a week did the junior judge publish his dissent, which then led to the order being referred to the Chief Justice for a third opinion.
This delay raised a crucial legal point: Can a dissenting judgment issued after the open pronouncement be valid?
To clarify this, the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. (1953). It was held that:
“Once a judgment is delivered in open court, it becomes effective. Even if unsigned, it remains valid if shown to be properly pronounced.”
A similar stand was taken in Vinod Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University (1988), reinforcing that signing the judgment is not a prerequisite for its enforcement if it has been validly pronounced.
The Court concluded that once a judgment is dictated in open court, it becomes the binding decision unless a judge instantly records dissent. Any post-facto disagreement, without notice to parties or re-hearing, undermines the legal certainty and fairness of judicial pronouncements.
“When judgments are live-streamed and instantly acted upon, delayed dissent can mislead parties and impact justice delivery,” the Court warned.
Case Title: Malaya Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 28874 of 2023
Date of Judgment: May 02, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General along with Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Addl. Standing Counsel
