Trial Judges Shouldn't Write Directly To Supreme Court Seeking Time Extension : SC Reiterates

The Supreme Court on Friday once again expressed disapproval of the practice of Trial Courts sending letters directly to the Supreme Court seeking extension of time set for completion of trial, and added that such communications should be routed through the High Court.

The bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice K Vinod Chandran was informed that the judge of the Trial Court has filed an application seeking an extension of the time. However, the affidavit was devoid of particulars.

This made Justice Maheshwari ask: "How do we entertain all these letters? We are issuing directions. We already issued it for the Bombay High Court, and they formulated a policy. When there is a direction of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and in that situation, if the judge is asking [for extension of time], then he should have advised the District judge, and the District judge should have sent it to the Portfolio judge, and there is a Committee constituted which should recommend if it's appropriate. Otherwise, how is this appropriate? The Supreme Court said something, and they are coming to us, asking. Can you see what is written?" 

The matter pertains to a family dispute.  When the matter came before the Supreme Court on March 20, a bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K Vinod Chandran directed that the cases may be expedited and completed within 6 months. The matter was disposed of. One of the Trial Court judges then filed an MA seeking an extension of time for the trial. 

On this, the Court expressed reservation, stating that it can't be directly filed at the Supreme Court. The Court directed that a better affidavit be filed through the Registrar General of the High Court.

In May, a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar, in Durgawati @ Priya v. CBI, had passed an order observing that trial judges should not directly apply to the Supreme Court seeking exension of time.

“In cases, where a direction to conclude the trial, suit or appeal is issued by this Court, it is the duty of the Registry of the High Court concerned to supervise the progress of such cases. If an extension is required, it may be granted with the satisfaction of the immediate supervisory officer and the correspondence in this regard shall be forwarded to this Court by either Registrar General or Registrar Judicial proposing the same”, the bench had observed in Durgawati.

The Court further directed the High Courts to frame a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) outlining the manner in which cases wherein directions have been issued to expedite the hearing or conclusion of trial, suit or appeal shall be corresponded with the registry of the Supreme Court.