Calcutta High Court Clarifies Stance on Delayed Judgments
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has declared that a judgment cannot be set aside solely on the ground of an 18-month delay in its delivery after the conclusion of arguments. The court delivered this verdict on Thursday, while simultaneously expressing its disappointment at the prolonged delay.
Bench's Detailed Observations on Judicial Delay
The division bench, comprising justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya, emphasized that although "delay defeats the rights of parties to a litigation to have expedition justice"—a principle integral to Article 21 of the Constitution—the judgment cannot be invalidated merely due to delay "at the drop of a hat, without anything more." The bench explicitly stated, "Although we are somewhat disappointed at the long delay of over 18 months from the conclusion of the arguments to the delivery of the impugned judgment, we are unable to set aside the same solely on the ground of such delay."
Background of the Case Involving New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society
The case originated when New Parijat Co-operative Housing Society Limited approached the bench, seeking to set aside a single judge's order. Their primary contention was that the verdict was delivered 18 months after the conclusion of the final hearing, which they argued compromised the judicial process. The bench noted that the housing society only pursued this action after the single judge ruled in favor of the KMDA, highlighting a reactive rather than proactive approach.
Supreme Court Guidelines and Parties' Inaction
The bench pointed out that, as per guidelines established by the Supreme Court, the parties had the option to approach the Chief Justice of the high court after six months of the verdict being reserved. They could have sought an early judgment or requested the re-assignment of the matter to another bench. However, the appellants chose to remain passive. The bench observed, "The appellants waited for a prolonged period of more than eighteen months and suddenly woke up from slumber only after the judgment went against them."
Timeline and Key Arguments in the Writ Petition
The writ petition was initially filed in 2016, with arguments from both sides concluding on December 8, 2023, after which the judgment was reserved. However, the judgment was not delivered until June 13, 2025—a gap of 18 months. The housing society argued that, by that time, the Single Judge no longer possessed the subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the writ petition according to the then-existing roster. This contention added a layer of complexity to the case, though it was ultimately not sufficient to overturn the judgment based solely on the delay.
This ruling underscores the balance between ensuring timely justice and maintaining the integrity of judicial decisions, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
