Order Based on Oral Consent from Counsel Cannot Be Reviewed on the Basis of Lack of Written Consent.

Order Based on Oral Consent from Counsel Cannot Be Reviewed on the Basis of Lack of Written Consent.

Under Rimpa Saha vs. District Primary School Council Malda the Supreme Court of India established that constitutional court lawyers can legally use oral statements as part of their practice before the court. The top court invalidated a review decision from the Calcutta High Court based only on the absence of written consent for the initial court order. A review examination of an April 26 2024 order addressed irregularities within the administrative recruitment of the District Primary School Council (DPSC) Malda which happened in 2009. Council representatives gave their verbal approval for the court to pass this order. The Supreme Court upheld constitutional court practice of validating counsel-made oral statements representing parties during judicial proceedings and confirmed the April 26 order included auditable oral consent from Howrah DPSC counsel and others. A Supreme Court ruling invalidated the Calcutta High Court's permission for a review petition because of the absence of written consent. According to Justice Oka the decision to remove court orders based on unrecorded consent would destroy the system of utilizing oral court representation. The Supreme Court reinstated the April 26 original order and specified that anyone who disagreed with it could file legal challenges beneath existing laws.

Find Lawyers In Your City

Connect with Best Lawyers at your location