The Supreme Court of India has issued a set of directives to all High Courts across the country to bring transparency and expedition to the process of delivering judgments. Hearing a writ petition concerning inordinate delays in the pronouncement of judgments, a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh mandated that all High Courts must, within four weeks, modify their procedures to clearly mention the dates when a judgment is reserved, pronounced, and uploaded on the official website.
The order came in the case of Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., where the petitioners had approached the apex court complaining that judgments in their cases were not being delivered despite arguments having been concluded years ago.
Background of the Case
The writ petition was filed highlighting the grievance of litigants facing long waits for judgments after their cases were heard and reserved. In response, the Supreme Court had previously directed all High Courts to furnish information regarding pending judgments and the dates on which they were reserved. Subsequently, the court also sought details on the dates the judgments were uploaded to the High Courts’ websites.
Submissions of the Amicus Curiae
During the hearing on September 22, 2025, Ms. Fauzia Shakil, the learned amicus curiae appointed to assist the court, presented a compilation report based on the information received. She pointed out several inconsistencies and difficulties:
- Complete reports from the High Courts of Kerala and Patna were still awaited.
- 11 High Courts had not provided the dates of reserving judgments in cases where the judgments had already been pronounced, only mentioning the dates of pronouncement and uploading.
- The information was sent by various High Courts in different formats, creating “genuine difficulty in collating the reports and then to analyze such reports.”
- A significant issue highlighted was the practice where judges “pronounce only the operative part of the judgment,” with the reasoned judgment not being uploaded for a long time, or suffering an “inordinate delay.”
To manage the complex task of data collation, the amicus requested assistance.
Court’s Analysis and Directions
The Supreme Court acknowledged the challenges faced by the amicus curiae and permitted her to take the assistance of two junior women lawyers from the Supreme Court Bar, who would be appointed as legal aid counsels by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Addressing the core issue, the Bench directed the amicus to prepare a uniform format for data collection to be applied across all High Courts. The Court ordered that if the information already provided fits the new format, it should be collated accordingly. If additional information is required, the High Courts would be directed to furnish it within four weeks.
In a significant move towards procedural reform, the Court issued a binding directive:
“Meanwhile, all the High Courts are directed to suitably modify their existing practice or formats to ensure that (i) the date when the judgment is reserved; (ii) the date when the judgment is pronounced; and (iii) the date when the judgment is uploaded on the website are clearly mentioned in the uploaded/certified copy of judgment.”
Furthermore, to tackle the problem of delays after the pronouncement of operative parts, the Court ordered that the new format must include a column “to specify whether the pronouncement was of the operative part only or whether the full judgment was pronounced.”
Reinforcement of Timelines
The Bench emphatically reiterated its previous ruling in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and ors. VS. State of Gujarat and ors. (C.A. No. 11000/2024), where it was held that reasoned judgments “ought to be uploaded within five days of the pronouncement of the operative part.” The Court stated that High Courts are “bound to follow the said dictum.”
However, acknowledging potential practical challenges, the Court noted that it may consider revising the timeline “from five days to ten or fifteen days (maximum)” if High Courts bring forth genuine difficulties.
The matter has been listed for further consideration on November 10, 2025.
