Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: As Supreme Court Issues New Directions on Delay in Delivery of Judgments by High Courts – The Times of India

In an important ruling on how high courts should deal with chronic delays in pronouncing judgments, the Supreme Court has reiterated and intensified its earlier instructions on how such delays should be eliminated in a timely manner to achieve timely delivery of the reserved judgment. The Court placed particular emphasis on the importance of ensuring that the lack of explanation of delays has a negative impact on people’s confidence in the justice system. It, therefore, directed that in case a judgment is not delivered within three months of the reservation, the Registrar General should refer the matter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for taking necessary action.On August 25, 2025, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra took place in Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP & Ors. The appeals were the result of a very lengthy procedure in the Allahabad High Court, in which a criminal appeal pending decision in December 2021 was not resolved within an unreasonably long time.Background of the case:The appellant, the actual complainant, has filed the present criminal appeals against interim orders dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2008, wherein the appeal was favored by respondent No. 2 had not been heard.The appellant has argued that the criminal appeal had been pending since 2008, although several attempts were made to identify and dispose of it at an early stage. He said he had petitioned the Supreme Court nine times for an expeditious hearing, but no final judgment had yet been made.The Division Bench of the High Court finally decided to stay the appeal pending adjudication on 24.12.2021, after hearing detailed arguments. However, no judgment followed. This inaction lasted so long that the appellant had to apply to the Supreme Court.Proceedings at the Supreme Court:By order dated April 15, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Supreme Court to dispose of the appeal in a timely manner, but ideally within three months. However, as the case was already pending in December 2021 and had not yet been decided, the Court saw the need to investigate the structural problem of the delayed delivery of the sentences.On January 27, 2025, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to submit a report and bring the matter to the attention of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.The report dated 29.01.2025 shows that the judgment was not pronounced within six months even though the appeal was heard and reserved on 24.12.2021. Therefore, in accordance with an administrative decision dated 07.03.2019, the matter was referred to a Regular Bench listing. The matter was again referred to the Chief Justice on 19.12.2022 and was scheduled to be heard on 09.01.2023, but did not proceed in a meaningful manner.Supreme Court Analysis:The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of these facts and has expressed its strong disapproval of the prolonged delay. The Court noted that it was “extremely shocking and surprising” that no ruling was issued for almost a year after arguments were completed.The Bench noted that it was often confronted with cases of the same nature and that the proceedings could take many months or even years to be decided even after it had been earmarked to be decided. The Court also noted that in most High Courts there is no proper mechanism for litigants to communicate such delays to the Chief Justice or the court concerned.The Court warned that such delays would cause litigants to lose confidence in the judicial process, which will be counterproductive to the ends of justice.“It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was delivered only almost a year after the date of hearing of the appeal. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar cases where the proceedings remain pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases more than six months or years in which no judgment is delivered after the case has been heard. In most of the High Courts, there is no mechanism whereby the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice to inform him of the delay in pronouncing the judgment. In such a situation, the litigant loses confidence in the judicial process which defeats the ends of justice.”The Bench based its decision on the landmark judgment in Rai’s wing. SCC 318where the Supreme Court had discussed the issue of inordinate delays in delivering judgments.The observations quoted are:“9. It is true that before the High Courts no time limit for the delivery of judgment is contemplated either under the Code of Civil Procedure or under the Code of Criminal Procedure, but since the delivery of the judgment is part of the system of administration of justice, it must be done without delay. In a country like ours, where people consider judges only second to God, efforts must be made to strengthen that faith of the common man. Delay in disposal of cases makes people raise their eyebrows, sometimes even sincerely, which if left unchecked can shake people’s confidence in the justice system. A time has come when the judiciary itself must stand up for the preservation of its status, respect and respect for the realization of the rule of law. Due to the fault of a few, the glorious and shining name of the judiciary should not be made ugly. It is the policy and purpose of the law to achieve speedy justice, which requires efforts to meet the expectation of society to ensure speedy, clean and uncontaminated justice.”“10. Under the circumstances prevailing in some High Courts, I deem it fit to issue some guidelines regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am sure, will be followed by all concerned as such is the mandate of this Court…”The Court then adopted Anil Rai’s five special guidelines, such as dates of reservation and judgment to be recorded, monthly reporting by court officials, intervention of the Chief Justice after two to three months and the right of parties to request transfer of the case in case no judgment is delivered within six months.The Supreme Court has also taken serious note of another disturbing practice of certain High Courts of passing final orders without passing the reasoned judgment that accompanies them for a long period of time.The Court condemned such practices by citing a history of precedents such as the State of Punjab v Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v Jagdev Singh Talwandi. State of Gujarat, Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana, Ajay Singh v. State of Chhattisgarhand recent cases such as the Balaji Baliram Mupade and Ratilal Jhaver bhai Parmar.The Court said that withholding reasoned awards deprives the injured party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redress, including appeal or review mechanisms.The Supreme Court reiterated Anil Rai’s binding and issued further instructions on operations to ensure strict compliance:

The Court explained that such directions are additional and do not replace the directions given in the Anil Rai case.In the light of the above comments and indications, the Supreme Court dismissed the present appeals. The Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to the Registrars General of all High Courts to ensure uniform compliance across the country.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.(S).3700-3701 OF 2025 RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI vs. STATE OF UP & ORS.For appellant(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Devesh Mohan, Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Ayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv. For respondent(s): Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based lawyer practicing in the courts of Delhi NCR.)