Supreme Court Issues Directions To Ensure Same/Next-Day Release Of Prisoners Granted Bail, Acquittal Or Sentence Suspension

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

Print Page

Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Pronounce Verdict Despite Transfer, Successor Judge Can't Order Rehearing.

The Delhi High Court has held that once final arguments in a criminal trial are concluded and the matter is reserved for judgment, the judge who heard the case is duty-bound to pronounce the verdict even if he or she is subsequently transferred.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl.M.C. 9064/2025 and Crl.M.A. 37956/2025

Decided On: 05.01.2026

Parvesh Mann Vs. State NCT of Delhi

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

Citation:  : MANU/DE/0050/2026

Print Page

Supreme court: There should be no delay in reasoned judgment after pronouncement of operative order

The fact which has been brought to our notice by the Registrar of the Commission can, in no manner, be countenanced that between the date of operative portion of the order and the reasons are yet to be provided, or the hiatus period is much more than what has been observed to be the maximum time period for even pronouncement of reserved judgments. In State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi MANU/SC/0159/1983 : 1984(1) SCC 596 in para 30, the Constitution Bench of this Court, as far back in 1983, drew the attention of the Courts/Tribunal of the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was being adopted by the adjudicating authorities including High Courts/Commissions, that of pronouncing the final operative part of the orders without supporting reasons. This was later again discussed by this Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/1586/2001 : 2001(7) SCC 318. {Para 3}

4. Undisputedly, the rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized. It indeed amounts to defeating the rights of the party aggrieved to challenge the impugned judgment on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.

5. The afore-mentioned principle has been emphatically restated by this Court on several occasions wherein the delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the problems gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early, and the reasons follow much later, or are not made available for an indefinite period.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 9404/2019

Decided On: 15.02.2021

Sudipta Chakrobarty and Ors. Vs. Ranaghat S.D. Hospital and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0098/2021

Print Page

Whether judgment will be vitiated if there is delay in delivery of judgment?

 Whether delay in delivering judgment ipso facto would be enough to vitiate the same ?

69. The next unsuccessful attempt on the part of learned Counsel for plaintiffs was regarding delay in delivering judgment in first appeals. Learned Counsel would submit that arguments in first appeals were lastly heard on 21/7/1994 and matters were closed for judgment on that date, but the common judgment was delivered on 9/3/1995. A grievance is made that because of delay, important points were missed. Appellate Court did not consider main objection of plaintiffs that decree obtained from the Hon'ble Supreme Court was collusive and not binding on the parties. He also pointed out that judgment of Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court on necessary party was ignored and this could happen due to delay. According to learned Counsel, as material points were missed, serious prejudice has been caused to appellants and on this ground itself, judgment of the appellate Court gets vitiated. On the effect of delay in delivering judgment under Order XX Rule 1 of the Code, Shri Khapre relied upon:

"(i) R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and others (MANU/SC/0447/1976 : AIR 1976 SC 2037),

(ii) Bhagwandas Fatechand Daswani and others v. H.P.A. International and others (MANU/SC/0028/2000 : AIR 2000 SC 775),

(iii) Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (MANU/SC/1586/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 3173),

(iv) Kanhaiyalal and others v. Anupkumar and others (MANU/SC/1112/2002 : AIR 2003 SC 689(1),

(v) M/s. Telestar Travels Pvt. Ltd. And others v. Special Director of Enforcement (MANU/SC/0154/2013 : AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 1041,"

70. On going through the above authorities, it can be seen that mere unexplained delay in delivering judgment is not fatal and guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 21 of the judgment in the case of Anil Rai (supra) regarding pronouncement of judgments need to be strictly followed being mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. These guidelines are:

"(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause title date of reserving the judgment 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 judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the concerned Chief Justice 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 judgments 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 judgment 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 prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concernedwithin two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, 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."

71. In the present case, no grievance was ever made by the parties regarding alleged delay in delivering judgment. The facts of the case would show that while reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, learned Single Judge has come to his own independent conclusion based on material placed on record. Moreover, it is too late for the plaintiffs to get up and say that delay has caused prejudice to them. In what way prejudice is caused is not explained. Order XX Rule 1 of the Code nowhere mentions that delay vitiates the judgment. In this backdrop, we do not find force in the submission of learned Counsel for plaintiffs that delay is fatal and judgment in first appeals gets vitiated.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Letters Patent Appeal No. 77 of 1995 in First Appeal No. 22 of 1980, 

Decided On: 30.08.2016

Prabhatai  Vs.  Chimote & Sons and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:B.P. Dharmadhikari and Indira Jain, JJ.

Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 83 Bom

Print Page

Supreme Court: Procedure to be followed by litigant if High court does not pronounce judgment after passing of two month

 Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate of this Court. Such guidelines, as for present, are as under:

(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.

(ii) That Chief Justice 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 judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that months.

(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months, the concerned Chief Justice 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 judgments 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 communi-cation be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

(iv) Where a judgment 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 prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the Bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

(v) If the judgment, 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 deems fit in the circumstances.

 We hope and trust that the above guidelines shall be strictly followed and implemented, considering them as self-imposed restraints.

Supreme Court of India

Anil Rai vs State Of Bihar on 6 August, 2001

Bench: K.T.Thomas, R.P. Sethi

Print Page