With growing concern over judgments reserved but left undelivered, the Supreme Court has intervened with binding directions to High Courts, declaring that such delays weaken public trust in the justice delivery system.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, while expressing dismay at the Allahabad High Court’s failure to pronounce judgment for more than a year after reserving it, observed, “It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice.”
The case stemmed from a criminal appeal pending before the Allahabad High Court since 2008, where, despite multiple applications for early listing, the matter remained undecided. Although arguments were concluded and judgment reserved in December 2021, no verdict followed, resulting instead in repeated administrative transfers without final adjudication.
The Court recalled its earlier ruling in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, which laid down guidelines for the pronouncement of judgments without undue delay. It noted that despite such directions, the problem persists across several High Courts. The Court, reiterating and expanding upon those directions, held: “We reiterate the directions and direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench.”
The Court also deprecated the practice followed in some High Courts of delivering operative orders while withholding reasoned judgments for extended periods, observing that such conduct deprives litigants of their right to pursue further remedies.
Case Title: Ravindra Pratap Shahi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Appeal No(S).3700-3701 of 2025
Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Picture Source :
