What is the Doctrine of Functus Officio?

 

Introduction

 

Today we will discuss the meaning and the significance of the term “functus officio.” You might have heard this term often but many a times, it is used in wrong context. It is a specific term with applicability in both administrative parlance as well as judicial parlance. Let us understand its plain meaning.

 

Plain Meaning of functus officio

 

1. Black’s Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition (2004), defines functus officio as: -

 

“having performed his or her office (of an officer or official body) without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished.”

 

2. P. Ramanatha Aiyar's Law Lexicon provides its meaning as: -

 

“A term applied to something which once has had a life and power, but which has become of no virtue whatsoever. Thus, when an agent has completed the business which he was entrusted his agency is functus officio.”

 

3. Wharton's Law Lexicon, Fourteenth Edition, defines it as: -

 

“a person who has discharged his duties, or whose office or authority is at an end.”

 

4. Trayner's Latin Maxims, Fourth Edition, explains it as: -

 

“Having discharged his official duty. This is said of any one holding a certain appointment, when the duties of his office have been discharged. Thus a Judge, who has decided a question brought before him, is functus officio and cannot review his own decision.”

 

5. Corpus Juris Secundum defines it as: -

 

“literally having discharged his duty. Having fulfilled the function, discharged the office, or accomplished the purpose, and therefore, of no further force or authority”.

 

Hence, the plain meaning of functus officio is that when an office or a position ceases to have any functionality or when its functions are completed. Let us also understand its meaning with the help of judicial precedents of India.

 

Judicial Precedents on the Doctrine of functus officio

 

1. Lalit Narain Mishra v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, 2016 SCC OnLine HP 2866 - In this case, the Petitioner was seeking the writ of mandamus in a matter that had already been decided by the Court. The Court denied such relief and observed that: -

 

“19. “Functus officio” is a Latin term meaning having performed his or her office. With regard to an officer or official body, it means without further authority or legal competence because the duties and functions of the original commission have been fully accomplished.

20. “Functus” means having performed and “officio” means office…..

….

25. In other words, the authority, which had a life and power, has lost everything on account of completion of purpose/activities/act.

26. Notably, what the petitioner is seeking is virtually a writ of mandamus in a decided case, which is legally impressible.”

 

2. Bhupendra Kumar Dash v. State of Odisha and Others, AIR 2016 Ori 167 – In this case, it was observed that once a District Tender Committee approves a Tender, it becomes functus officio and in the same manner, when an Arbitrator pronounces its award, it becomes functus officio.

 

 3. Smt. Tara Devi v. State of UP through Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others, 2010 SCC OnLine All 3016 – In this case, it was observed that a Returning Officer who had formally declared the results of an Election becomes functus officio and has no further power left to rectify the errors in the Electoral Process. It was further observed that if this Doctrine is applied to an officer whose term has expired, it would mean that he has no official authority left to discharge any function.

 

4. B.M. Jain and Sons Co. P. Ltd. v. Bombay Cable Car Co. P. Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine CLB 71 – If a Court disposes of a Petition with a certain direction, then till such direction is complied with or becomes complete, the Court continues to have jurisdiction and cannot be considered to have become functus officio.

 

5. V.G. Naidu v. Pahlajraj Gangaram, 2016 SCC OnLine Mad 9710 – This was a case in relation to Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 relating to Execution Proceedings and the Court observed that till the time of limitation subsists, there could be any number of Execution Applications and if the statute provides power to correct certain kinds of errors, then the Doctrine of Functus Officio would be subject to such qualifications and its applicability would depend “upon the nature and extent of power conferred on the authority functioning.” It was also observed that: -

 

“The principle of finality is attached to the doctrine of functus officio, but, there are exceptions to the principle of finality. However, the Court's inherent power to set aside a judgment will only be invoked in exceptional circumstances to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Fraud is a genuine, albeit limited, exception to the important principle of finality of litigation.”

 

6. SBI v. S.N. Goyal, (2008) 8 SCC 92 – Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was discussed that deals with Judgments and Decrees. It was observed that Order XX Rule 1 (3) provides that a judgment may be dictated in open court and its transcript forms a part of the record of the case, after making such corrections as may be necessary. And Order XX Rule 3 provides that once a judgment has been pronounced and signed, it shall afterwards be altered or added to only according to law. Hence, mere dictation does not amount to pronouncement and “therefore, a Judge becomes functus officio when he pronounces, signs and dates the judgment (subject to Section 152 and power of review).” It was further observed that the situation might be slightly different for quasi-judicial authorities and “when an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents the authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. But once the order is pronounced or published or notified or communicated, the authority will become functus officio.”

 

7. Komal Chand v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1965 SCC OnLine MP 31 – In this case, it was observed that “the Court had no power to recall and impound a certificate of sale after executing it and delivering it to the purchaser, or to reopen a case and impound documents proved after signing the decree, or to impound an instrument admitted in evidence after delivery of judgment.” The Court further observed that in the same manner when a Sub-Registrar registers a document, it becomes functus officio and thereafter it has no power to impound the same.

 

8. Govt. of U.P. v. Raja Mohd. Amir Ahmad Khan, (1962) 1 SCR 97 – The Supreme Court observed that once a Collector determines the Stamp Duty to be paid on an Instrument, it becomes functus officio and it could not impound the Instrument thereafter.

 

Concluding Remarks

 

We see that the Doctrine of Functus Officio is a doctrine of wide application, and it could be applied to both the judicial and the quasi-judicial authorities. I feel that it also acts as a matter of propriety that once an Order or a Decision has been pronounced, the authorities or the judges cannot take back the same. If the Doctrine of Functus Officio is not applied, then it would mean chaos for the Applicants and the litigating parties since the authorities, or the judges would be able to change their Orders at whim and there would be no certainty left with respect to any Order passed by any authority or Court.