Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1264

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
Ravindra Pratap Shahi – Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025 (Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No(s). 4509-4510 of 2025)
Decided On : 25-08-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the 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. Aayushman Aggarwal, Adv. Ms. Ayesha Choudhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Speedy Justice – For fault of a few, glorious and glittering name of Judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly.
(2) If Judgment is not delivered within three months, Registrar General shall place the matters before Chief Justice for orders and Chief Justice shall bring it to notice of concerned Bench for pronouncing order within two weeks thereafter, failing which matter be assigned to another Bench.

Headnote:
Administration of Justice – Speedy Justice – Delay in disposal of cases facilitates people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely which, if not checked, may shake confidence of people in judicial system – Time has come when Judiciary itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and regards for attainment of rule of law – For fault of a few, glorious and glittering name of Judiciary cannot be permitted to be made ugly – It is policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to expectation of society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice – In most of High Courts, there is no mechanism where litigant can approach concerned Bench or Chief Justice bringing to its notice delay in delivery of judgment – In such situation, litigant loses his faith in judicial process defeating ends of justice – Some High Courts have adopted practice of pronouncing final order without reasoned judgment, which is not delivered for substantial length of time depriving aggrieved party of opportunity to seek further judicial redressal – Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to Chief Justice of High Court a list of cases where Judgment reserved is not pronounced within remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months – If Judgment is not delivered within three months, Registrar General shall place the matters before Chief Justice for orders and Chief Justice shall bring it to notice of concerned Bench for pronouncing order within two weeks thereafter, failing which matter be assigned to another Bench. (Paras 7, 8, 9 and 10)
Facts of the case:
Present Appeals have been preferred against impugned interim orders dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2008 by which said criminal appeal preferred by respondent no.2 was not taken up for hearing.
Findings of Court:
Copy of this judgment to be circulated to Registrar Generals of all High Courts for compliance.
Result : Appeals disposed of with observations and directions.

JUDGMENT

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present Appeals have been preferred against the impugned interim orders dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2008 by which the said criminal appeal preferred by respondent no.2 was not taken up for hearing.

3. By order dated 15.04.2025, this Court requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. However, considering that the criminal appeal pending before the High Court was earlier reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but the judgment was not delivered necessitating orders from the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to assign the matter to a different Bench, we heard the learned counsel for the parties for issuance of necessary directions in this regard.

4. According to the appellant/de-facto complainant, the appeal preferred by respondent no.2 is pending since 2008 wherein he moved the High Court on nine different occasions for early listing, hearing and disposal of the appeal. However, no final verdict has been given by the High Court. Eventually, arguments were heard by the Division Bench of the High Court at great length, and the appeal was reserved for orders on 24.12.2021. When we heard this matter on 27.01.2025, we directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to immediately bring the issue to the notice of the Chief Justice and also submit a report with regard to the correctness of the averments made in these Appeals.

5. The Registrar General of the High Court submitted his report dated 29.01.2025 submitting inter alia that the appeal was heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021. However, since the judgment was not delivered within six months, in light of administrative order of the Chief Justice dated 07.03.2019, the case was ordered to be listed before Regular Bench (as per roster). The matter was again placed before the Chief Justice on 19.12.2022, upon which, it was directed that the matter be listed as per roster on 09.01.2023. On this date, no one appeared for the appellant. Therefore, the appeal was adjourned for hearing on 06.02.2023 and, thereafter, on subsequent dates, hearing did not materialise.

6. The above report of the Registrar General of the High Court supports the averments made in these Appeals that the criminal 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.

7. It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard. This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In most of the High Courts, there is no mechanism where the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the delay in delivery of judgment. In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice.

8. This Court in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar , (2001) 7 SCC 318 dealt with such state of affairs prevalent in some High Courts wherein after conclusion of arguments, judgments are not pronounced for a period spread over years. This Court made observations and issued guidelines as contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment which are quoted herein below for reference:

“9. It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay. In a country like ours where people consider the Judges only second to God

Click Here to Read the rest of this document