In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court shed light on a notable practice observed in the Bombay High Court concerning the submission of "Minutes of Order" by advocates. These minutes serve as detailed notes provided by legal representatives from both sides, outlining the key aspects to be incorporated into the forthcoming court judgment.

While intended to assist the judges, the Supreme Court cautioned that the practice of relying on "Minutes of Order" should not inadvertently infringe upon the rights of third parties. It emphasized the necessity for the High Court to carefully scrutinize these minutes to guarantee that any order proposed aligns with the lawfulness and fairness required in judicial proceedings.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan made the following observations regarding this practice :

a) In the Bombay High Court, it is customary for advocates representing parties in proceedings to submit "Minutes of Order" as a gesture of cooperation with the Court. These documents outline the points that could potentially be included in the Court's final order, serving the purpose of aiding the judicial process.

b) An order made according to the "Minutes of Order" submitted by advocates representing parties in proceedings is distinct from a consent order. It is considered an order made by the court independently, encompassing all relevant legal implications and not solely relying on mutual agreement.

c) Before tendering the “Minutes of Order” to the Court, the advocates must consider whether an order, if passed by the Court in terms of the “Minutes of Order,” would be lawful. After “Minutes of Order” is tendered before the Court, it is the duty of the Court to decide whether an order passed in terms of the “Minutes of Order” would be lawful. 

In this case, the Bombay High Court granted permission for the construction of a compound wall under police protection, relying on "Minutes of Order" presented by advocates. Despite objections from government officers and the absence of involvement of affected parties, the Division Bench upheld the order without providing reasons, leading to the appeal.

The Supreme Court declared the High Court's order illegal and remanded the matter, permitting the construction under police protection pending the final decision in the Writ Petition.

Case Title: Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. v. Meher K. Patel & Ors.

Click here to Read/Download the Order