Also Read - Gujarat High Court Stays Divorce Decree After Husband Enters Second Marriage During Pendency of Wife's Appeal

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.

Also Read - Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Circulation of Influencer's Videos

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.

Also Read - Aadhaar Not Mandatory For Digi Yatra Registration If Other ID Proof Available: Kerala High Court's Prima Facie View

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.