The Supreme Court on Tuesday characterized the practice of High Courts withholding reserved judgments for months as an “identifiable ailment” that requires urgent eradication. A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, emphasized that such delays hinder the delivery of justice and must not be allowed to persist within the judicial system.
The observations were made during the hearing of a plea involving the Jharkhand High Court. The petitioner alleged that while the High Court had orally pronounced a judgment dismissing a writ petition on December 4, 2025, the written verdict has yet to be uploaded or made available to the parties involved.
The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, expressed serious concern over the timeline. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the litigant, criticized the delay as a systemic failure.
“It seems some kind of lip service is going on… Some message has to go. This amounts to playing with the majesty of law,” Rohatgi argued before the court.
Responding to these concerns, Chief Justice Surya Kant noted that there are broadly two categories of judges. He pointed out that while many are hardworking and hear numerous matters, some fail to deliver the final judgments after reserving them.
“We are not on anyone individually. This is a challenge before the judiciary and this is an identifiable ailment. It has to be treated and eradicated and it cannot be allowed to spread,” the CJI remarked. He further criticized a “prevalent trend” where cases are heard and then repeatedly posted for “further directions” instead of being decided.
The Chief Justice, sharing his own judicial philosophy, noted that during his 15-year tenure as a High Court judge, he never kept a judgment reserved for more than three months.
To address this issue on a broader scale, the CJI announced that the matter of delayed judgments and avoidable litigation would be a key agenda item in his upcoming meeting with the Chief Justices of all High Courts.
“We will discuss this among other agendas. We will try to find a solution so that such avoidable litigation ends,” he stated.
In its order, the Supreme Court noted that there was “no rhyme or reason” for the Jharkhand High Court’s delay in uploading the December 4 verdict. The bench directed the High Court to ensure that a complete copy of the judgment is provided to the counsel by the end of next week.
This scrutiny follows a directive issued by the top court in November 2025, which required all High Courts to submit detailed reports on the timelines of reserved judgments. The Supreme Court continues to monitor compliance with its mandate that all certified copies of judgments must clearly record three dates: the date of reservation, the date of pronouncement, and the date of uploading.
The matter has been scheduled for further listing in the week commencing February 16.
