To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:
A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of Judgements/Orders
3 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813; Rajan v. The State of
Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025.
4 Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 392, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023; Order XX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
I. Timelines
a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High
Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned
judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3
months from the date of reserving such judgement.
b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in
pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of
personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail,
criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death
references, etc.
c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should
preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day.
In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be
pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.
d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or
acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated
to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is
pronounced.
e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above,
the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day
or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to
be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in
complying with the bail conditions, etc.
f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the
Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the
order. {Para 16}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL / CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others Vs State of Jharkhand and another
Author: SURYA KANT, CJI.
Citation: 2026 INSC 604
Dated: MAY 29, 2026
1. The instant proceedings arise from various Writ Petitions which,
though individual in origin, sought similar prayers for
“pronouncement of reserved judgements” statedly pending for
indefinite periods of time before certain High Courts. The influx of
these cases, coupled with the startling picture presented regarding
delays, brought into focus a broader issue affecting the
administration of justice in several High Courts across the country.
2. In view of this, the scope of the proceedings was expanded to
address a question of wider constitutional significance. The
objective was to identify and lay down comprehensive and binding
guidelines to remedy the persistent delay in the pronouncement of
reserved judgements by High Courts, so as to ensure that the reliefs
claimed are not rendered nugatory merely owing to the delayed
delivery of the final decision.
A. FACTS
3. We find it appropriate to first recapitulate the sequence of events
that led to the filing of these petitions and the subsequent
developments that arose during the course of the proceedings
before this Court.
3.1. Without getting into the intricate details of the individual cases
before us, and treating Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169/2025 as the lead
case for illustrative purposes, suffice it to note that Petitioner Nos.
1, 2 and 3 were convicted by the Trial Courts in Jharkhand under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and other related
offences and were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2012 and
2014. Petitioner No. 4, however, was convicted under Sections 376
and 346 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2018.
Each of them had already served over a decade in actual custody
(which includes the period of incarceration pending trial) when they
sought to prefer criminal appeals before the High Court of
Jharkhand, where arguments were heard, and judgments were
reserved in their appeals, seemingly, between January and June
2022.
3.2. Owing to the undue delay in pronouncing the reserved judgments, the Petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant petitions, seeking appropriate directions to the High Court to pronounce the same expeditiously.
3.3. This Court, on the first date of hearing, on 23.04.2025, directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand to submit a
report on all cases in which judgments were reserved more than
two months ago and were pending pronouncement, along with
Bench-wise details.
3.4. In compliance thereof, the Registrar General submitted a status
report, which was taken on record by this Court on 05.05.2025.
The report inter alia disclosed that 56 matters, including criminal
appeals, had been finally heard by a Division Bench of the High
Court on various dates between 04.01.2022 and 16.12.2024, with
final pronouncements still awaited in each. Further, 11 matters
were reserved by a Single Judge Bench on dates ranging from
25.07.2024 to 27.09.2024. The details of the appeals preferred by
the Petitioners, however, were not included in the said report.
3.5. On the same date, we were apprised of an article published in the
Indian Express, an English-language daily newspaper, titled “After
SC rap, HC decides 75 Criminal Appeals in a week”, indicating
that the High Court had pronounced a record 75 criminal appeals
within a week.
3.6. Consequently, vide order dated 05.05.2025, we directed the
Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand to furnish the
list of all 75 criminal appeals where the judgements had been
pronounced, including details of the date when the said
judgements were reserved, as well as the fate of the criminal
appeals filed by the Petitioners.
3.7. Enlarging the scope of these proceedings, we further directed High Courts throughout the country to submit reports disclosing cases in which judgments had been reserved on or before 31.01.2025 and remained unpronounced, along with Bench-wise particulars. In the interregnum, this Court learnt of another issue regarding the delay in uploading judgements/orders to the respective High Court
websites for matters where the operative part of the said
judgement/order had already been pronounced in open court. To
understand the scope of this issue, the Registrar Generals of all the
High Courts were further directed to submit an additional report,
providing complete descriptions of the dates of pronouncement of
judgments and the dates on which such judgments were uploaded
to the respective High Court websites.
3.8. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on 13.05.2025, this
Court noted that all four Petitioners had been released from
custody pursuant to judgments delivered by the High Court of
Jharkhand in their respective criminal appeals. However, as
indicated earlier, the instant petitions were nevertheless kept
pending in view of the larger issue they raised.
3.9. As the extent of the problem relating to the delayed pronouncement of judgments across High Courts became evident, several other matters involving similar grievances and praying for similar reliefs, arising in both criminal and civil proceedings, were tagged with the lead case.
3.10. In this backdrop, we requested Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned
Advocate, to assist this Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae.
Pursuantly, Ms. Fauzia, with the able assistance of Ms. Tasmiya
Taleha and Ms. Mallika Agarwal, painstakingly analysed the
reports received from various High Courts and pointed out that the
information had been submitted in varying formats, thereby
making collation difficult. In view thereof, vide order dated
22.09.2025, all High Courts were requested to modify the existing
format to ensure that uploaded and certified copies of their
judgments clearly disclose the date of reservation, the date of
pronouncement, and the date of uploading on the website, along
with a specification as to whether the operative part alone or the
full judgment had been pronounced.
3.11. The learned Amicus thereafter compiled and filed a consolidated report in four volumes, containing a High Court-wise analysis of delayed pronouncements. The learned Amicus was further
requested vide order dated 16.02.2026 to consolidate all the
suggestions and recommendations received from the High Courts
for the issuance of uniform general judicial guidelines.
3.12. Learned Amicus accordingly submitted the draft guidelines, which were directed to be circulated to the Registrars General of all the High Courts for their respective suggestions, and the matter was
thereupon reserved for orders.
B. ANALYSIS
4. Having considered the material on record, along with the
suggestions received from several High Courts in response to the
draft guidelines circulated by the learned Amicus, we are of the view
that this is a fit case warranting the intervention of this Court to
formulate uniform guidelines to address delays in pronouncing
reserved judgements across all High Courts in the country.
5. At the outset, we record our appreciation for the assistance
rendered by Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned Amicus Curiae. She,
together with her team, was entrusted with the arduous task of
collating, verifying, and analysing data received from various High
Courts, as well as proposing guidelines for uniform application.
Their diligence and thoughtful contributions proved invaluable to
the effective conduct of these proceedings.
6. The exercise undertaken by learned Amicus culminated in a set of
recommendations intended to address the concerns specified in the
earlier paragraphs. They are reproduced as follows:
Category Suggestions by the Amicus Curiae
Bail Applications
1) Bail applications should be heard and orders should be pronounced preferably on the same day, or on the next day, if reserved, and must be uploaded promptly.
2) Orders granting regular bail, suspension, or acquittal must be communicated immediately to jail authorities and the Trial Court.
3) The undertrial or convict should be released on the same day or the next day, unless custody is required in another case or there is a delay in surety.
Category Suggestions by the Amicus Curiae
4) Compliance must be reported by the Trial Court to the concerned High Court Bench.
Clarifications
where Judgements are Reserved
In criminal appeals and death references,
where the Appellant is in custody,
clarifications must be sought by the Bench
from the advocates within 5 days of reserving
the judgement.
In all other cases, clarifications must be
sought by the Bench from the advocates
within 1 month of reserving the judgement.
Timeline for Pronouncing of Judgement
High Courts should endeavour to pronounce
judgements within a maximum of 3 months
from the date of reserving.
Automated Monitoring Mechanism
At the end of every month, an automated
email should be sent to the Chief Justice of a
High Court listing all reserved judgements
that are pending in that month, with a copy
to the concerned Bench.
The Chief Justice may circulate, among
judges of the High Court in a confidential
sealed cover, a list of cases where judgements
remain unpronounced beyond 6 weeks from
the conclusion of arguments.
Timeframe in cases of delay in pronouncement of judgement
If the judgement is not pronounced within 2
months, the Chief Justice shall draw the
attention of the concerned Bench.
If the judgement is not delivered within 3
months, Registrar General shall place the
matter before the Chief Justice, who shall
direct the concerned Bench to pronounce the
judgement within 2 weeks.
If the judgement is still not pronounced after
2 weeks, the Chief Justice may re-assign the
matter to another Bench for rehearing.
Category Suggestions by the Amicus Curiae
Remedies for Litigants
If a judgement is not pronounced after 3
months of reserving, a party may file an
application for early pronouncement of the
judgement, which shall be listed within 2
days.
If a judgement is not pronounced after 6
months of reserving, a party may approach
the Chief Justice of the High Court for
withdrawal of the matter and its reassignment
to another Bench.
Operative and Reasoned Part of Judgement
All benches shall endeavour to pronounce
reasoned judgements in all cases.
If only the operative part is pronounced, the
reasoned judgement must be uploaded
within 5 days, extendable up to a maximum
of 15 days.
The case status on the High Court website
must clearly reflect: “operative part delivered
- judgement with reasons awaited/not
uploaded”
Automated Monitoring Mechanism
An automated email should be sent to the
Chief Justice of the High Court of all the
cases where the reasoned judgement is
awaited beyond 10 days along with a copy to
the concerned bench.
Timeline in cases of delay in reasoned judgements
If the reasoned judgement is not uploaded
within 15 days, the Registrar shall place the
matter before the Chief Justice, who shall
direct the Bench to upload it within 2 to 3
days.
When the reasoned judgement is uploaded on
the website, an automated intimation
through Email/SMS should be sent to the
advocates on record in the matter.
Category Suggestions by the Amicus Curiae
Remedies for Litigants
If a reasoned judgement is not uploaded
within 15 days of reserving, a party may file
an application seeking early judgement,
which shall be listed within 2 days.
If a reasoned judgement is not uploaded
within 1 month of reserving, a party may
approach the Chief Justice for appropriate
directions regarding uploading of the
reasoned judgement.
Disclosure on the High Court Website
The High Court website should display a list
of all judgements that have been reserved for
more than 3 months but have not yet been
pronounced.
A separate list should be maintained and
displayed on the website showing cases
where the operative part has been delivered
but the reasoned judgement has not been
uploaded within 15 days.
The case status must reflect the date of
pronouncement and the date of uploading of
the judgement.
Pronouncement and Uploading of Judgements
All judgements must be pronounced in open
court and uploaded within 24 hours of
pronouncement.
Legal Aid Matters
The convict, undertrial should be informed of the case status / the status of the reserved judgements on a weekly or monthly basis by
the State Legal Services Authority. The legal aid counsels should promptly file applications upon the expiry of the prescribed maximum time period.
7. We find that the above suggestions made by learned Amicus have
been fashioned on the sheet anchor of the data and responses
received from the High Courts themselves. These recommendations
are, in our assessment, both precise and practicable.
8. Crucially, Volume I submitted by learned Amicus during the course of proceedings, offers a comprehensive account of the pendency of reserved judgments across High Courts. The pan-India scenario is deeply disquieting. Reserved judgments have remained
unpronounced for months, and in some instances, for years. The
report makes it clear that the problem is pervasive and brooks no
further delay in its redress.
9. It goes without saying that we cannot turn a Nelson’s Eye to the
human dimension of this problem, and it must be noted that each
delayed judgement in that compilation represents a litigant whose
case has been heard but whose fate hangs in the balance. The right
to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution is not confined to the expeditious conduct of a trial. It
extends to every stage of the proceeding and is as much violated by
such delay in pronouncing a reserved judgement as by a denial of
the right to be heard.
10. The weight of this delay falls with particular severity on those held in custody, for whom each day without a pronouncement is a day of continued confinement. A convict whose appeal has been
reserved, or an accused who has sought bail and is awaiting the
court’s decision, cannot be expected to accept the court’s silence
with equanimity.
11. The interval between the hearing and the pronouncement also
affects the quality of the adjudication, as a judgment bears the
imprint of the arguments that preceded it, and it reflects them most
faithfully when it follows them closely. Beyond this, there is a
broader dimension. Courts are institutions of trust, and the
regularity with which they speak after reserving judgement is part
of what sustains that trust. Such regularity in pronouncement is
neither a procedural nicety nor a matter of administrative
convenience. It is the condition on which citizens’ confidence in the
justice delivery system rests.
12. Being well-aware of these considerations, this Court has, time and again, impressed upon the High Courts the importance of
pronouncing reserved judgements within a reasonable time. In Anil
Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318., a 2-Judge Bench of this Court noted that though, for High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgement is contemplated under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it must be done without delay and accordingly, issued the following guidelines:
“10. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the
High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some
guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgements
which, I am sure, shall be followed by all concerned,
being the mandate of this Court. Such guidelines, as
for the present, are as under:
(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue
appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case
where the judgement is reserved and is
pronounced later, a column be added in the
judgement where, on the first page, after the
cause-title, date of reserving the judgement
and date of pronouncing it be separately
mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their
administrative side, should direct the Court
Officers/Readers of the various Benches in the
High Courts to furnish every month the list of
cases in the matters where the judgements
reserved are not pronounced within the period
of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments
the judgement is not pronounced within a
period of two months, the Chief Justice
concerned shall draw the attention of the
Bench concerned to the pending matter. The
Chief Justice may also see the desirability of
circulating the statement of such cases in which the
judgements have not been pronounced within a
period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of
the arguments amongst the Judges of the High
Court for their information. Such communication be
conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
(iv) Where a judgement is not pronounced within
three months, from the date of reserving it,
any of the parties in the case is permitted to
file an application in the High Court with a
prayer for early judgement. Such application, as
and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench
concerned within two days excluding the
intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgement, for any reason, is not
pronounced within a period of six months,
any of the parties of the said lis shall be
entitled to move an application before the
Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer
to withdraw the said case and to make it over
to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is
open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or
to pass any other order as he deems fit in the
circumstances.”
[Emphasis Supplied] [Sic]
13. The matter did not rest there. For instance, in Ratilal Jhaverbhai
Parmar v. State of Gujarat,2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985.this Court supplemented the
guidelines issued in Anil Rai (supra) to the following extent:
“19. Such categories of cases demand the high courts
to lay down the law in clear terms for comprehension
of all concerned. Obviously, this process is time
consuming and the time limit for delivering judgements
by the high courts as laid down in Anil Rai v. State of
Bihar6, at times, is breached. We have full trust and
confidence in the learned Judges of the high courts
since they are well-equipped to tackle any kind of
pressure situation. However, while it would be prudent
to leave it to the learned Judges to pick any one of the
three options [(i) dictation of the judgement in open
court, (ii) reserving the judgement and pronouncing it
on a future day, or (iii) pronouncing the operative part
and the outcome, i.e., “dismissed” or “allowed” or
“disposed of”, while simultaneously expressing that
reasons would follow in a detailed final judgement
supporting such outcome], it would be in the interest
of justice if any learned Judge, who prefers the
third option (supra), makes the reasons available
in the public domain, preferably within 2 (two)
days thereof but, in any case, not beyond 5 (five)
days to eliminate any kind of suspicion in the
mind of the party losing the legal battle. If the
pressure of work is such that in the assessment
of the learned Judge the reasons in support of the
final judgement cannot be made available,
without fail, in 5 (five) days, it would be a better
option to reserve the judgement. Also, if the
ultimate order would have the effect of changing the
status of the parties or the subject matter of the lis, it
would always be advisable to stick to the course
envisaged in Order XX…”
[Emphasis Supplied] [Sic]
14. This Court in fact, while reiterating the guidelines laid down in Anil Rai (supra), has, from time-to-time, issued further directions in
the same tenor, calling upon the Chief Justices of the High Courts
to exercise closer administrative oversight of pending reserved
matters.3
15. It is appropriate to mention here that this Court has been issuing
directions governing the outer limits for pronouncement of
judgments by the High Courts, owing to the statutory lacuna in this
regard, a situation not faced by the Trial Courts.4 We therefore
deem it necessary to revisit and restate these directions in more
comprehensive and definitive terms.
16. To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:
A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of Judgements/Orders
3 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813; Rajan v. The State of
Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025.
4 Section 353(1), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 392, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023; Order XX Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
I. Timelines
a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High
Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned
judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3
months from the date of reserving such judgement.
b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in
pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of
personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail,
criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death
references, etc.
c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should
preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day.
In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be
pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.
d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or
acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated
to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is
pronounced.
e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above,
the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day
or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to
be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in
complying with the bail conditions, etc.
f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the
Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the
order.
g. In the event the judgment in a criminal appeal/death
reference is reserved, and the appellant is in custody, the
clarifications, if any, required by the Bench from the
advocates be sought within 7 days of the date of reserving
the judgment.
h. In all other matters, the clarifications, if any, should be
sought not beyond 1 month of the date of reserving the
judgment.
i. Where, after hearing the parties, the Bench is of the
opinion that any delay in pronouncement of a reasoned
judgement will cause irreparable loss to the parties and
urgent orders are required, the operative part may be
pronounced in Court, and the reasoned judgement be
uploaded within 7 days or a maximum of 15 days, if
practical difficulties are faced by the High Court. Such
cases may include habeas corpus matters, criminal
appeals resulting in the acquittal of a convict in custody,
matters relating to demolition/eviction, matters relating to
admission to educational institutions, or other urgent
cases.
j. A reasoned judgement pronounced in open court should
be uploaded on the High Court website within 24 hours.
II. Accountability
a. The Chief Justices of the High Courts, on the
administrative side, are requested to make necessary
changes to the High Court website, where at the end of
every month, an automated email is sent to the Chief
Justice of the High Court, specifying all the reserved
judgements pending in that month, along with a copy of
the email to the Bench that has reserved the judgement.
b. The Chief Justice of the High Court may also circulate the
statement of the cases, in which the judgments have not
been pronounced within 2 months from the date of
reserving such judgment, amongst the Judges of the High
Court for their information. The communication shall be
conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
c. In the event the reserved judgment is not delivered within
3 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 judgment within 2 weeks thereafter.
d. In the event the reserved judgment is still not delivered
within the extended period of 2 weeks, the Chief Justice
should assign the case to another Bench with a
notification to the advocates and the parties. The new
Bench to which the matter is assigned shall obviously
rehear the case and pronounce the judgment promptly.
e. Where the operative part of the judgement has been
pronounced in open court, and the reasoned judgement is
not uploaded within 15 days, 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 uploading the reasoned judgement
within the next 3 days.
III. Remedies
a. In case the judgment is not pronounced upon the expiry
of 3 months from the date of reserving, any party to the lis
shall be entitled to file an application in the High Court
with a prayer for early judgment.
(ai) Such an application shall be listed before the
concerned Bench within two days, excluding the
intervening holidays.
(aii) The Registry shall inform the Chief Justice of the
High Court of all such applications filed.
(aiii) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced
within a period of 3 and a half months from the date
of reserving, any party to the lis shall be entitled to
move an application before the Chief Justice of the
High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case
and make it over to any other Bench for fresh
hearing.
b. In case the reasoned judgement is not uploaded upon the
expiry of 15 days from the date of pronouncement of the
operative part, any party to the lis is permitted to file an
application in the High Court with a prayer for early
judgement.
(bi) Such an application shall be listed before the
concerned Bench within two days, excluding the
intervening holidays.
(bii) The Registry shall inform the Chief Justice of the
High Court of all such applications filed.
(biii) If the reasoned judgement, for any reason, is not
uploaded within 1 month from the date of
pronouncement of the operative part, any party to
the lis shall be entitled to move an application before
the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to
withdraw the said case and make it over to any other
Bench for fresh hearing.
B. Measures to Increase Transparency
I. Format of Judgements/Orders
a. The certified copy of the judgment should mention the
date of reserving the judgment, the date of pronouncing
the judgment, and the date of uploading the judgment.
b. Where the operative part of the judgement has already
been delivered, the date of pronouncing the operative part
shall be the date of pronouncement, and the date on which
the reasoned judgement is uploaded will be the date of
uploading.
II. Updates to the High Court Website
a. After the conclusion of final hearing, the date of reserving
judgement must be reflected against the case status on
the High Court website.
b. If only the operative part of the judgment is delivered, the
case status on the High Court website must reflect
accordingly.
c. When the reasoned judgement is uploaded on the website,
an automated intimation through email/SMS be sent to
the advocates representing the parties.
17. The Registrars General of the High Courts are directed to place
these guidelines before the Chief Justices of their respective High
Courts so that appropriate steps are taken to incorporate necessary
amendments into the High Court Rules and their official websites.
18. It would be apposite at this stage to place the directions issued
hereinabove in their proper context, bearing in mind the
exceptional responsibilities entrusted to the High Courts under the
Constitution of India. As Constitutional Courts and guardians of
fundamental as well as legal rights, the High Courts occupy a
position of singular importance within our constitutional
architecture.
19. For a vast majority of citizens, they constitute the first and most
immediate forum for the vindication of rights and the redressal of
grievances. It is to the High Court that a citizen turns when
personal liberty is imperilled, when executive action is alleged to
have transgressed constitutional limitations, or when the exercise
of public power calls for judicial scrutiny. In innumerable
instances, the controversies brought before the High Courts are not
limited to the interests of an individual litigant, but concern
questions carrying consequences for entire communities, and at
times, for society at large.
20. The volume, breadth, and diversity of matters that come before the High Courts are themselves a measure of the mammothian
obligations they shoulder. Their jurisdiction, particularly under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is of remarkably wide
amplitude and without close parallels in the contemporary world.
Bail applications, habeas corpus applications, and criminal
appeals where questions of personal liberty remain at stake;
disputes concerning livelihood and property; family matters;
commercial causes; and a broad spectrum of constitutional and
public law challenges, together, form part of their daily docket. In
a nation of India’s size and demographic heterogeneity, it is
perhaps inevitable that the High Courts serve as the principal
judicial fora to which citizens flock in large numbers, across regions
and social circumstances, seeking protection of the law.
21. The Judges of the High Courts bear these obligations day after day, under conditions that few judicial institutions elsewhere may be
called upon to endure, often carrying rosters that extend far beyond
a hundred matters a day. Such circumstances have created an
environment in which Judges are required not only to adjudicate
competing claims in accordance with the law, but also to constantly
weigh urgency against volume so that no case remains unattended
for want of judicial time. We have frequently been informed of
instances where Judges sit well past their usual court timings to
hear pending cases and thereafter, retire to their offices to fulfil
their remaining judicial duties. Their daily tasks, thus, extend far
beyond solely interpreting legal principles and involve a continuous
and unrelenting race against time to ensure that rights, entitlements, and legitimate expectations brought before them are not rendered illusory by the mere passage of time.
22. We therefore have no hesitation in observing that, notwithstanding severe institutional pressures and ever-growing caseloads, the High Courts have, over decades, discharged their constitutional obligations with dedication, resilience, and distinction. Their continued functioning under such circumstances stands as a
testament to the institutional strength, sense of duty, and enduring
commitment that have long characterized this nation’s judiciary. It
is precisely because we recognise these burdens and seek to
facilitate the effective discharge of constitutional responsibilities
that implementing measures, such as those elaborated in
Paragraph 16, become necessary.
C. CONCLUSION
23. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the directions set out
herein are intended to ensure that proceedings before the High
Courts culminate in the pronouncement of judgements within a
defined and reasonable timeframe. These measures are issued in
the confidence that a structured framework will assist the High
Courts in the consistent discharge of their constitutional
responsibilities, while preserving the quality and deliberative
character of judicial decision-making. We have every reason to
believe that the High Courts will give effect to these directions fully
and faithfully.
24. At this juncture, we clarify that the observations and directions
issued hereinabove shall neither be construed nor interpreted as
adverse remarks against the functioning or conduct of any learned
Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand or of any other High Court.
The aforesaid general directions are not intended to cast any
aspersion upon, nor do they bear any nexus with, any individual
learned Judge of a High Court.
25. In view thereof, the instant Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms
of the directions issued in Paragraph 16.
26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of in the above
terms.
................…….........CJI
(SURYA KANT)
…................…….........J.
(JOYMALYA BAGCHI)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 29, 2026
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment