Supreme Court To Issue Guidelines To High Courts To Avoid Delay In Pronouncing Judgments; Amicus Gives Suggestions

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 16) reserved judgment on framing draft guidelines for the High Courts to avoid delay in pronouncing judgments after concluding hearing.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi appreciated the draft guidelines submitted by Advocate Fauzia Shakil, the amicus curiae in the matter, and sought the responses of the High Courts to the amicus's suggestions. The Chief Justice said that after considering the suggestions and responses, the judgment will be pronounced.

"We are not targeting anybody. It is only for enhancing the accountability and strengthening the institution. We will wait for a week or so, after that we will release the order, "CJI said.

Shakil informed that, as per the feedback received from litigants and lawyers, after the intervention of the Supreme Court in this matter, the situation has improved in the High Courts.

CJI said that there are very good judges in High Courts, and sometimes delays occur because of overcommitment on the part of Judges to hear as many cases as possible.

"There are many good judges. The learned judge, because of whom this issue arose, is also an outstanding judge well known for his knowledge of criminal jurisprudence. Sometimes, in our over-anxiety for dedication to dispose of so many cases, we create an unmanageable situation. We request our judges, please regulate yourselves. Ultimately, you have only 24 hours. You cannot condemn someone for working too hard. It is only for their assistance that we are laying down some guidelines," CJI said.

The Court took up this issue while considering a petition challenging the Jharkhand High Court's delay in pronouncing judgments in certain criminal appeals. The Court decided to go into the larger issue, and sought details from all High Courts on pending judgments.

Suggestions of amicus

The amicus proposed a maximum three-month period for pronouncement of reserved judgments and public disclosure of delayed verdicts on High Court websites.

“In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High Court shall endeavor to pronounce a reasoned judgment promptly within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of reserving the judgment”, stated the draft guidelines suggested by Shakil.

The draft guidelines recommend that High Courts endeavour to deliver reasoned judgments within three months from the date of reserving them and adopt a standard operating procedure to minimise the time gap between reserving and pronouncement.

Display details of reserved verdicts on HC Websites

The suggestions state that the date on which judgment is reserved should be reflected on the High Court website, and matters should not remain shown as “part-heard” for an unreasonably long period. It is also proposed that High Courts should be more prompt in cases involving personal liberty.

“The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in hearing and pronouncing judgments and orders in matters of personal liberty i.e. regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody) and death references.”

The draft further proposes that if clarifications are required after reserving judgment in criminal appeals or death references, they should be sought preferably within five days, and in other matters within one month.

It is further suggested that Chief Justices on the administrative side should be notified, via automated monthly emails, regarding pending judgments. Based on that, the Chief Justice should draw the attention of the concerned Bench if judgments remain unpronounced beyond two months.

The draft guidelines reiterate that if the judgment is still not delivered within three months, the Registrar General should place the matter before the Chief Justice for directions, including assigning the case to another Bench after two additional weeks for rehearing. The draft also provides that parties may seek early pronouncement through an application after three months and move the Chief Justice for withdrawal and reassignment of the matter if the delay exceeds six months.

Another proposal deals with cases where only the operative part is pronounced. It suggests that reasons should ordinarily be uploaded within five days and in any event within fifteen days, with the case status on the website indicating that the operative part has been delivered and the reasoned judgment is awaited.

To ensure accountability, the draft recommends that each High Court display on its homepage a dedicated bar titled “Judgment reserved beyond 3 months”, which would lead to a page showing real-time tabulated details of such criminal and civil cases, including the Bench and the date of reserving judgment.

The draft provides that the pronouncement of judgments shall be in open court and it should be promptly uploaded on the High Court website within the next 24 hours.

For legal aid matters, it is suggested that the convict or undertrial should be informed of the status of his case/the status of the reserved judgments on a weekly or monthly basis by the State Legal Services Authority.

Similar suggestions are also made for trial courts. These include adherence to statutory timelines such as Section 392 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 requiring pronouncement of judgments no later than 45 days, and disclosure on district court websites of criminal cases where judgments remain unpronounced beyond 45 days and civil cases beyond 60 days.

Background

The matter arises from a writ petition filed by four convicts belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who complained that their criminal appeals, reserved in 2022 by the Jharkhand High Court, had not been decided for over two to three years.

They contended that such delay violates their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, including the right to speedy trial, which extends to the appellate stage.

Earlier, while expressing concern over the delay in pronouncing judgments, the Court had directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit details of cases where judgments reserved on or before January 31, 2025 were still pending.

Previously also, the Supreme Court has issued directions to the High Courts on the timely pronouncement of judgments in reserved matters. In Anil Rai vs State Of Bihar, the Supreme Court, way back in 2001, had issued a set of guidelines to the High Court.

Case no. – W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025

Case Title – Pila Pahan@Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.