JUDGMENT

A.S.ANAND, CJI.

(1) This appeal, under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, calls in question final judgment and order made by the High Court of Madras in election petition no. 1 of 1996 on 29/12/1999.

(2) Though, fresh elections have since been held to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and to an extent this appeal has been rendered infructuous, the manner in which the election petition was dealt with by the High Court causes us concern and that necessitates our making reference to some salient facts.

(3) The appellant was a candidate from 220 Charenmahadevi assembly constituency of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly at the elections held in 1996. He had represented that constituency, according to averments made in the election petition, for four consecutive terms between 1977 and 1991. In the elections held on 27/04/1996 he lost to respondent no. 1. He filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate - respondent no. 1, mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the respondent was a government contractor who had a subsisting contract with panchayat union and the state government and was therefore, disqualified to be chosen as a member of the assembly under section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act"); and secondly, the returned candidate had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the limits prescribed under the Act and had, thus, committed a corrupt practice under section 123(6) of the Act. The respondent resisted the election petition and denied all the allegations. By the impugned judgment and order the election petition was dismissed, after evidence had been led by the parties.

(4) Now to the disquieting feature: Results of elections, held on 27/04/1996, were declared on 11/05/1996. The Legislative Assembly was summoned soon thereafter. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent no. 1 on 24/06/1996. The trial of the election petition continued before the learned designated judge till 24/02/1998, when judgment was reserved. The election petition remained pending in the High Court during trial for almost 20 months. After that judgment was reserved on 24/02/1998, we find that the judgment was pronounced only on29/12/1999, i.e. 22 months after the judgment had been reserved. Such a long delay in pronouncing the judgment, in an election petition, to say the least was not at all proper. We find no justification whatsoever for the judgment to have remained reserved for 22 months. Such long delay in pronouncing judgments gives rise to avoidable criticisms. Courts must guard against it.

(5) That however, is not all. There is yet another infirmity brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment within about six days of the pronouncement of the judgment, on 3/01/2000. It appears that the appellant was called upon to deposit stamps for copy of the judgment, 11 months later, on 5/12/2000 only and certified copy of the judgment was actually made available to the appellant on December, 2000. The total term of an assembly is. five years. The period spent for the trial of the election petition and from when the Judgment remained reserved and the time spent in supplying certified copy, 53 months had expired. Thus, a major part of the entire term of the assembly was spent in court proceedings. We are at loss to understand why the election petition was dealt with so casually in the High Court. That 11 months time was taken for supplying certified copy of the judgment is itself a poor reflection on the administration of the High Court. We find it proper to request the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras to look into this aspect because such delays in delivery of certified copies of judgments in all cases, and more particularly the election petition, is highly objectionable. Why and how it happened