The Supreme Court of India has reiterated and expanded its guidelines for the timely pronouncement of judgments by High Courts, addressing the issue of inordinate delays that it noted can “shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.” A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra issued the directions while disposing of an appeal concerning a criminal case where the Allahabad High Court had failed to deliver a judgment for nearly a year after reserving it for orders.
The Court directed the Registrar General of every High Court to furnish a monthly list of cases to the Chief Justice where judgments have been reserved but not pronounced. If a judgment is not delivered within three months, the matter must be placed before the Chief Justice, who shall then direct the concerned Bench to pronounce the order within two weeks, failing which the case is to be assigned to a different Bench for fresh arguments.
Case Background
The matter came before the Supreme Court in Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors., an appeal against interim orders of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2008. The appellant, Ravindra Pratap Shahi, who is the de-facto complainant in the case, stated that the criminal appeal had been pending since 2008.
Arguments in the appeal were heard at length by a Division Bench of the High Court, which reserved the case for judgment on December 24, 2021. However, a judgment was never delivered. A report from the Registrar General of the High Court, submitted to the Supreme Court, confirmed this fact. The report stated that since the judgment was not delivered within six months, an administrative order of the Chief Justice dated March 7, 2019, mandated that the case be listed before a regular bench as per the roster. The matter was subsequently listed on January 9, 2023, but the hearing did not materialize.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court expressed its dismay over the delay. In the judgment authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, the bench observed, “It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard.”
The Court noted that it is repeatedly confronted with similar situations where judgments are not delivered for months or even years after being reserved. It highlighted the lack of a mechanism in most High Courts for litigants to formally bring such delays to the notice of the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice. The judgment stated, “In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice.”
The bench extensively referred to its previous decision in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318, which had dealt with the same issue and laid down a set of guidelines. The Court quoted from the Anil Rai judgment: “A time has come when the judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.”
The guidelines from Anil Rai included:
- Mentioning the date of reserving and pronouncing the judgment on its first page.
- Monthly submission of lists of reserved but unpronounced judgments by Court Officers to the Chief Justice.
- The Chief Justice drawing the attention of the concerned Bench if a judgment is not pronounced within two months.
- Permitting parties to file an application for early judgment if it is not pronounced within three months.
- Allowing parties to move an application before the Chief Justice to withdraw the case and assign it to another bench for fresh arguments if the judgment is not pronounced within six months.
The Court also deprecated the practice in some High Courts of pronouncing the final operative order without a reasoned judgment, which it noted is not delivered for a substantial length of time, thereby depriving the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal.
Decision and Directions
Finding that the directions in Anil Rai needed to be reinforced, the Supreme Court reiterated them and issued an additional directive. The Court ordered:
“We reiterate the directions and direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench.”
The Court clarified that this new direction is in addition to the guidelines already issued in the Anil Rai case.
Disposing of the appeals, the Supreme Court directed that a copy of its judgment be circulated to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts for compliance.
