The Supreme Court has held that delay caused in delivery of Judgments violates Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Apex Court has reminded the High Court that
Judicial Discipline Requires Promptness in Delivery of Judgments
Supreme Court says that this problem is compounded, where the result is known to the parties, but the reasons for the result are not known. As a result of which the parties are not able to approach the higher courts for challenging the same.
A Division Bench of Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Justice Hrishikesh Roy made above observation while hearing an SLP against an order passed by Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court.
In this case, the operative portion was pronounced on 21.01.2020, but the reasons were published after about nine months on 09.10.2020.
The Supreme Court referred to the Judgment of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi – 1984 (1) SCC 596, wherein the Court highlighted the serious difficulties caused due to the practice of several High Courts in pronouncing the Judgments with reason to follow.
In the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar – 2001 (7) SCC 318 Supreme Court has framed guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments.
Supreme Court observed that usually the Judgment should be delivered within two months of the conclusion of the arguments, and on expiry of three months any of the parties can file an application with a prayer for early Judgment.
However, if no judgment is pronounced for six months, then, in that case, any of the parties can move an application before the then Chief Justice of the High Court requesting to re-assign the case before another Bench for fresh arguments.
The Supreme Court held that delay in delivery of judgments is a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Hon’ble Judges have directed that the copy this Judgment should be circulated in all the High Courts as a “Reminder”.
The Court, while allowing the appeal observed that due to non-delivery of Reasoned Judgment for a period of 9 months, the aggrieved party has been grossly prejudiced. It amounts to defeating the rights of the parties to challenge the Judgment on its merit.
Case Details:
Title: Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs. State Of Maharashtra
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.3564/2020
Coram: Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy
Date of Judgment:
