The Supreme Court on Friday issued a comprehensive set of binding directions to all High Courts across the country to address delays in pronouncement of reserved verdicts and ensure timely delivery of judicial decisions, particularly in matters concerning personal liberty, bail and criminal appeals.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi laid down mandatory procedural and administrative guidelines to regulate timelines for pronouncement and uploading of judgments. Exercising its constitutional authority, the Court directed that High Courts should ordinarily pronounce reserved judgments within a period of three months from the date on which judgment is reserved.
The Supreme Court placed special emphasis on cases involving personal liberty and directed High Courts to display greater urgency in matters relating to regular bail, anticipatory bail, suspension of sentence, habeas corpus petitions and criminal appeals involving incarcerated accused or convicts.
The Court directed that orders in bail matters should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day. In cases where orders are reserved, the judgment must be pronounced and uploaded on the following day. The Bench further directed that orders granting bail or suspension of sentence should be immediately communicated to jail authorities to facilitate release of the accused or convict preferably on the same day or, at the latest, by the next day, unless detention is required in any other case or compliance with bail conditions remains pending.
The judgment further provides that where a High Court pronounces only the operative portion of an order, the detailed reasoned judgment must ordinarily be uploaded within seven days and, in exceptional circumstances, within a maximum period of fifteen days.
The Supreme Court also framed an institutional monitoring mechanism to track delayed judgments. It directed all High Courts to modify their digital case management systems so that reserved matters are automatically monitored. The Court ordered that, at the end of every month, automated communications containing details of pending reserved judgments should be sent to the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court as well as to the Bench that reserved the matter.
The Court further directed that if a judgment remains undelivered beyond three months from the date of reserving, the Registrar General must place the matter before the Chief Justice of the High Court for appropriate administrative directions. If the judgment continues to remain pending thereafter, the Chief Justice may bring the delay to the notice of the concerned Bench and, in appropriate cases, reassign the matter to another Bench for fresh hearing and disposal.
The guidelines also grant procedural remedies to litigants affected by prolonged delays. The Supreme Court held that parties would be entitled to move applications seeking pronouncement of reserved judgments where delays exceed the prescribed timelines. In cases where judgments are not delivered even after four months from the date of reserving, parties may approach the Chief Justice seeking withdrawal of the matter from the concerned Bench and reassignment to another Bench.
The Court additionally directed that certified copies of judgments must specifically mention the date on which judgment was reserved, the date on which the operative order was pronounced and the date on which the detailed judgment was uploaded.
The Supreme Court also instructed all High Courts to ensure that their official websites display the status of reserved judgments, including whether only the operative portion has been delivered and whether the detailed judgment has been uploaded. Parties and advocates are also required to be notified electronically once judgments are uploaded.
The directions were issued while hearing a writ petition concerning prolonged delay by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing judgments reserved in certain criminal appeals. The petitioners, who belonged to Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes communities, contended that their criminal appeals had remained pending for several years after conclusion of hearing, thereby violating their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, including the right to speedy justice and fair procedure.
The Supreme Court also took note of earlier judicial precedents, including the decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, in which guidelines had previously been issued regarding delayed judgments. Observing that delays in pronouncement of judgments adversely affect litigants, judicial credibility and administration of justice, the Court held that institutional safeguards and accountability mechanisms had become necessary to ensure timely judicial decision-making across High Courts.
The post Supreme Court sets 3-month deadline for reserved judgments, issues binding directions for High Courts appeared first on India Legal.