The Supreme Court, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, addressed the issue of whether an oral pronouncement of a judgment in open court attains finality. The bench was hearing a petition filed by Vidyadas Babaji, the head priest of the Sri Anjaneya Temple in Koppal, Karnataka, who sought a direction to the Karnataka High Court to upload the judgment that had been pronounced in open court.
Advocate Vishnu Shankar Jain, representing the petitioner, submitted that the High Court had initially reserved the judgment in November 2025. The matter was listed for re‑hearing on 25 March, after which the judgment was again reserved and subsequently pronounced in April. Although the case status indicated that the writ petition had been allowed, the judgment had not yet been uploaded. The petition was then fixed for the purpose of obtaining information about any criminal cases pending against the petitioner, which the State Advocate General had already supplied.
Chief Justice Kant referred to an order passed by the High Court in June, in which the court had sought details of criminal cases against the petitioner. Jain responded that the requisite information had already been furnished by the State.
Justice Bagchi, replying to the submissions, explained that an oral pronouncement that is not followed by the signing of a judgment does not constitute a complete judgment. He observed that a judge may pronounce a decision but, before signing, discover serious lacunae or additional material that ought to be incorporated. In such a situation the judge may place the matter again for hearing.
Chief Justice Kant added that, until the judgment is signed, the court remains functus officio only in respect of the pronounced order, and the parties may seek clarification or correction. The bench therefore concluded that there was no case to entertain at that stage, stating “no case to entertain at this stage is made out”. The Chief Justice orally directed the petitioner’s counsel, saying “Let the judgment come”.
The petition arose from a dispute concerning the management of the Sri Anjaneya Temple. In 2018 the District Collector of Koppal directed the takeover of the temple’s management and the removal of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this order before the Karnataka High Court, which passed an interim order in February 2023 restraining state authorities from taking any precipitous action against the petitioner in relation to the temple or his residence.
In March 2025 the petitioner alleged that state authorities attempted to replace him with another priest. A contempt petition was filed against the authorities, but the High Court dismissed it on 9 April, noting that a prima facie case had not been made out. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, observed that there was material to support the allegations and pointed out that the petitioner had not lodged a police complaint.
Aggrieved by the dismissal of the contempt petition, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court. In May of the previous year the Supreme Court directed the Karnataka government to permit the petitioner to continue performing his religious duties and to reside in a single room situated at the temple site, in accordance with the February 2023 interim order of the High Court. Subsequently, in August, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitioner’s plea with a request to the High Court to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously, preferably within six months.
The present proceeding, titled VIDYADAS BABAJI v. REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., WP(C) No. 789/2026, therefore served as an occasion for the Supreme Court to reiterate the principle that an oral pronouncement of judgment is not final until it is signed, and that the court may re‑hear the matter to incorporate any necessary corrections before the judgment is reduced to writing.