“Must Be Cured”: Supreme Court Flags Delay In Pronouncing Reserved Judgments, CJI Surya Kant To Raise Issue At High Court Chief Justices’ Conference
From the Edior's Desk
The Chief Justice of India on Tuesday reiterated his concern over delays by some High Court judges in delivering verdicts long after matters are reserved for judgment. Chief Justice Surya Kant said the issue will be taken up at the forthcoming conference of High Court Chief Justices scheduled for February 7–8. "This is also one of the agenda which we have already flagged and would like to discuss," he said.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi was hearing a writ petition filed by four convicts who had challenged the prolonged pendency of their appeals before the Jharkhand High Court, where verdicts had not been delivered for more than three years. Following the Supreme Court’s intervention earlier, the High Court pronounced decisions in those appeals. The apex court subsequently widened the proceedings to examine the problem across all High Courts and sought reports on reserved judgments. In a hearing last November, it had also suggested that High Courts publish information on the number of matters in which judgments have been reserved.
On Tuesday, Advocate-on-Record Fauzia Shakil, appointed as amicus curiae, placed on record consolidated reports compiled from various High Courts. In a connected matter, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi told the court that a High Court judge had delivered a decision orally on December 4, but the written judgment had still not been uploaded on the court’s website. "The Chief Justice should look into this; it is demeaning for the court to do this....some message has to go. What do we tell the client? This type of litigation does not add to the dignity of the institution," he said.
Responding, the Chief Justice said the justice delivery system was currently grappling with contrasting work cultures on the Bench. "There are two types of judges, one type - very hardworking judges, if you go to their courts, they will hear you argue, by the time they get get they will reserve 10-12 matters and eventually if you keep on hearing 7-10 matters, you know your capacity to write ....but there are judges, unfortunately, they do not deliver the judgments -that also create the prpblems. So this is a challenge before the system, we are not speaking against any individual ....but this is an identifiable setback of the justice delivery system, it must be cured, it must be cured very effectively. It requires serious cooperation, which must be done."
When Rohatgi urged the court to lay down timelines for delivery of judgments, Justice Bagchi noted that multiple earlier rulings already contain directions on the issue. The Chief Justice also pointed to what he described as a growing workaround: instead of formally reserving matters after hearings conclude, some High Court judges list them in the main cause list and repeatedly adjourn them—effectively avoiding scrutiny applicable to “reserved” judgments under Supreme Court guidance.
The Bench invited counsel to suggest solutions in two situations: first, cases adjourned for “directions” even though they are effectively ready for final arguments and could be heard and reserved; and second, whether there should be a requirement that a judgment be ready and available to lawyers at the time it is pronounced—except in instances where only the operative order is delivered due to “unique urgency.”
On the second point, the Chief Justice explained that “unique urgency” could include matters such as demolitions and bail, but said that even in such situations, the detailed judgment should follow within two months.
The court referred to earlier precedents stressing timely delivery and uploading of judgments. In Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., the Supreme Court held that reasoned orders should follow within a few days after the operative part is pronounced. In Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP, it held that if a reserved judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar should place the matter before the High Court Chief Justice. In Rajan v. State of Haryana, the court also held that uploading of judgments should not be delayed.
The matter is listed next on February 16.
Case details: Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan v. The State of Jharkhand
Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No. 169/2025.
Bench: Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi
