Supreme Court Intensifies Directives to High Courts on Chronic Judgment Delays
In a landmark ruling aimed at addressing persistent delays in delivering judgments, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated and strengthened its previous instructions to ensure timely resolution of cases. The Court emphasized that such delays must be eliminated promptly to uphold the integrity of the justice delivery system.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court's ruling emerged from the case of Ravindra Pratap Shahi vs State of U.P. & Ors., which involved highly protracted proceedings before the Allahabad High Court. The appeals stemmed from a criminal appeal that had been pending since 2008, with the appellant filing multiple requests for an early hearing without success.
A Division Bench of the High Court had reserved judgment on December 24, 2021, after hearing detailed arguments. However, no judgment was delivered, leading the appellant to approach the Supreme Court due to the prolonged inaction.
Proceedings Before the Supreme Court
On April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Allahabad High Court to decide the appeal in a timely manner, preferably within three months. Recognizing the structural issue of delayed verdicts, the Court ordered the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to submit a report and bring the matter to the Chief Justice's attention.
The report confirmed that the judgment had not been delivered within six months of being reserved, despite administrative efforts to list the case. The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval, describing the delay as "extremely shocking and surprising" and noting that such practices undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
Analysis and Guidelines
The Supreme Court highlighted that it frequently encounters cases where judgments are delayed for months or even years after arguments conclude. It observed that most High Courts lack a proper mechanism for litigants to report such delays to the Chief Justice or the concerned Bench.
Relying on the landmark judgment in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001), the Court reiterated guidelines to ensure timely judgment delivery, including:
- Recording dates of reservation and pronouncement of judgments.
- Monthly reporting by court officers on pending judgments.
- Intervention by the Chief Justice if judgments are not delivered within two to three months.
- The right of parties to request case transfer if judgments are delayed beyond six months.
The Court also condemned the practice of delivering final operative orders without providing reasoned judgments, citing precedents such as State of Punjab v. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh.
Enhanced Directives for Compliance
To ensure rigorous adherence, the Supreme Court issued supplementary instructions:
- The Registrar General of each High Court must furnish a monthly list of cases where judgments reserved have not been pronounced.
- This exercise must be repeated for three consecutive months.
- If a judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General must place the matter before the Chief Justice for orders.
- The Chief Justice must then notify the concerned Bench to pronounce judgment within two weeks, failing which the case shall be assigned to another Bench.
The Court clarified that these directions are supplementary to those established in Anil Rai and are binding on all High Courts.
Disposal and Implementation
In light of these observations, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals and directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to ensure uniform compliance across the country. The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to restoring public faith in the justice system by addressing systemic delays.
