Supreme Court: In the present case, appeals were filed against the impugned interim orders dated 28-8-2024 and 9-1-2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court, by which a criminal appeal preferred by Respondent 2 was not taken up for hearing. The Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra*, JJ., referred to the report of the Registrar General and was extremely shocked and surprised that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. The Court stated that in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 (‘Anil Rai Case’), it had issued certain guidelines for pronouncement of judgments and thus, for its adherence, it reiterated the directions in the present case and directed that if the judgment was not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders.
Background
This Court, by its order dated 15-4-2025, had requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. On 24-12-2021 the appeal was reserved for orders, but the judgment was not delivered, thereby necessitating orders from the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the matter to a different Bench.
The appellant stated that the appeal preferred by Respondent 2 was pending since 2008 wherein he had moved the High Court on nine different occasions for early listing, hearing, and disposal of the appeal. However, no final decision was given by the High Court. Thereafter, the appeal was reserved for orders on 24-12-2021, by the Division Bench of the High Court. On 27-1-2025, this Court directed the Registrar General of the High Court to immediately bring the issue to the notice of the Chief Justice and submit a report regarding the correctness of the averments made in the appeals. The Registrar General submitted its report on 29-1-2025.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to the report of the Registrar General, which stated that the appeal pending before the High Court was heard and reserved for orders on 24-12-2021, but the judgment was not delivered, and it was directed to be relisted before the Regular Bench.
The Court was extremely shocked and surprised that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. The Court stated that in most of the High Courts, there was no mechanism where the litigant could approach the Bench concerned or the Chief Justice, to bring to its notice the delay in the delivery of judgment. Thus, in such situations, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process, which defeats the ends of justice.
The Court relied on Anil Rai Case (supra), which dealt with similar situations prevalent in some High Courts wherein after conclusion of arguments, judgments were not pronounced for a period spread over years. This Court, in Anil Rai Case (supra) had issued certain guidelines in relation to the pronouncement of judgments, which had to be followed by all concerned.
The Court stated that some High Courts had adopted the practice of pronouncing the final order without reasoned judgment, that was not delivered for substantial length of time, thereby depriving the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal.
The Court, for adherence of the directions which had already been issued in Anil Rai Case (supra), reiterated those directions and directed the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved was not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months.
The Court further directed that if the judgment was not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the Bench concerned for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be assigned to another Bench. The Court disposed of the appeals and stated that the direction given in the present case was in addition to the guidelines/directions issued by this Court in Anil Rai Case (supra).
[Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813, decided on 25-8-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: S. Nagamuthu, Senior Advocate, Devesh Mohan, Advocate, Kush Chaturvedi, AOR, Prerna Priyadarshini, Advocate, Syed Faraz Alam, Advocate, Atharva Gaur, Advocate, Aayushman Aggarwal, Advocate, Ayesha Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Preetika Dwivedi, AOR
