The Supreme Court today orally said that oral pronouncement of a judgement in open Court does not make it final. Instead, changes can be made and matter re-listed for hearing until the same has been signed by the concerned judge(s).

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was dealing with the case of Sr Anjaneya Temple head priest - Vidyadas Babaji, who sought a direction to the Karnataka High Court to upload the judgment pronounced in open Court.

Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, for the petitioner, contended that the judgment was initially reserved by the High Court in November, 2025. However, the matter was listed for re-hearing on March 25. On this date, judgment was reserved again, which came to be pronounced in April. The case status showed that the writ petition had been allowed. The matter was then fixed for giving information about criminal cases pending against the petitioner, if any, which was statedly supplied by the State Advocate General. Yet, till date, the judgment has not been uploaded.

CJI Kant took note of an order passed in June, where the High Court sought information of criminal cases against the petitioner. In response, Jain said that relevant information had already been supplied by the State. "When Court pronounces judgment in open Court, the Court becomes functus officio", he argued.

Responding to the submissions, Justice Bagchi said, "The oral pronouncement not followed by signing of a judgment is not a judgment which is complete. What may happen is, a judge pronounces a judgment but before he signs, he finds that there are certain serious lacunae in the matter or as it appears, there may be some materials that he wants to incorporate which is there. So he places the matter again."

Ultimately, the case was disposed of, noting "no case to entertain at this stage is made out". "Let the judgment come", CJI Kant orally said to the petitioner's counsel.

For context, Sri Anjaneya Temple is located in Koppal, Karnataka. In 2018, the Collector of the district is said to have directed taking over of the management of the temple by removing the petitioner.

Against this order, a writ petition was preferred before the High Court, in which interim order was passed in favor of the petitioner. This order (of February 2023) restrained state authorities from taking any precipitative step against the petitioner in relation to the temple or his residence.

Be that as it may, in March 2025, an attempt was allegedly made by state authorities to replace the petitioner with another priest. Although a contempt petition was preferred against the authorities before the High Court, the same was dismissed vide order dated April 9, noting that prima facie case was not made out.

The Division Bench of the High Court was of the view that there was material to support the allegations. It observed that the petitioner had not even lodged a police complaint. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioner-priest approached the Supreme Court.

In May last year, the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to allow the petitioner to continue the religious duties as well as reside in a single room situated at the site in terms of the 2023 interim order passed by the High Court.

In August, his plea was disposed of with a request to the High Court to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously (preferably within 6 months).

Case Title: VIDYADAS BABAJI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., W.P.(C) No. 789/2026

Related - 'Oral Dictation Not Final' : Supreme Court Slams Party Who Alleged Signed Order Favouring Adani Ports Was Not Same As Oral Order