'Justice Not Merely About Speed, Judgments Can't Be Obtained By Click Of Button': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Fast-Track Divorce Case
Judges can't be pressured with rigid deadlines, Court said.
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking a direction to expedite divorce proceedings, observing that judicial officers cannot be pressurised with rigid timelines and that 'justice is not merely about speed'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329]
The single judge bench of Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that quality and fairness of judicial decisions cannot be compromised in the course of speedy disposal.
“…High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication of matters... Justice is not merely about speed. Judgments cannot be obtained by click of button. Reaching the correct and fair conclusion after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task…”
The court further noted that undue pressure on judicial officers can affect the quality of justice rendered. While endeavour must be made to avoid undue delays, it shouldn't affect judicial independence, the court opined.
“…"Whatever be the name we employ, working professionals cannot be bulldozed through unreasonable deadlines. Extraction of work by the controlling authority which ever be the organization, should ordinarily be like a sound from a musical instrument well played but never be like a sugarcane crusher where every drop is extracted ruthlessly from all veins leaving the sweet cane shapeless, tasteless and useless”, the court added.
It was further said by the court that judges should be given full freedom to conduct Courts in a judicious way, allotting the time and space necessary for scrutiny of matters.
“…No doubt unnecessary delay cannot be permitted. But at the same time one should remember that accountability can always be achieved only when there is freedom from undue pressure…Judicial Officers cannot be overburdened by entertaining this kind of writ petitions and imposing rigid time limits for disposal of cases. Every Judicial Officer is a master of his/her Court. Each case is unique. Sometimes it may not fit within predetermined timelines”, the court added.
For context, the husband-petitioner had approached the High Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court judge at Soraba to expedite his divorce petition filed in 2026 within the next one month.
Initially, the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which was allowed, directing his wife to rejoin him. However, the respondent-wife did not comply. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for divorce.
After examining the trial court records, the court noted that the judge at Sorabha was acting expeditiously. At the relevant time, the case was posted for cross-examination of Respondent Witness 1, after the respondent-wife filed her affidavit. Noting the same, the high court appreciated the judge presiding over the matter as well.
“…Therefore, this Court does not understand why the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the case filed by him…. The proceeding sheet reveals that the Presiding Officer of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Soraba has dealt with the matter in a manner by which it has to be dealt with... This Court therefore, appreciates Presiding Officer regarding the manner in which the proceedings are being held and the endeavour to dispose of the case in a time-bound manner”.
The court, before parting, also pointed out the practical difficulties while imposing rigid timelines on trial courts:
“…In those matters where directions are issued, even if the advocates do not come forward to conduct the cases or seek time or seek time on account of any reason... the Presiding Officers of the Courts will undoubtedly become stressful and the very thought that they would be necessitated to file applications seeking the High Court to grant further time for disposal of the cases will sometimes make the judicial officers feel low or gloomy….”.
Hence, the writ petition was dismissed with no grounds found to grant the relief claimed.
Case: WP No.24556/2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329