Reserved judgments must be pronounced within a reasonable, defined timeframe to preserve the right to speedy justice and maintain institutional trust. Protracted delays in judgment delivery violate the fundamental right to life and personal liberty, necessitating the implementation of binding, uniform procedural guidelines.

JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, CJI.

1. The instant proceedings arise from various Writ Petitions which, though individual in origin, sought similar prayers for “pronouncement of reserved judgments” statedly pending for indefinite periods of time before certain High Courts. The influx of these cases, coupled with the startling picture presented regarding delays, brought into focus a broader issue affecting the administration of justice in several High Courts across the country.

2. In view of this, the scope of the proceedings was expanded to address a question of wider constitutional significance. The objective was to identify and lay down comprehensive and binding guidelines to remedy the persistent delay in the pronouncement of reserved judgments by High Courts, so as to ensure that the reliefs claimed are not rendered nugatory merely owing to the delayed delivery of the final decision.

A. FACTS

3. We find it appropriate to first recapitulate the sequence of events that led to the filing of these petitions and the subsequent developments that arose during the course of the proceedings before this Court.

3.1. Without getting into the intricate details of the individual cases before us, and treating Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169/2025 as the lead case for illustrative purposes, suffice it to note that Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were convicted by the Trial Courts in Jharkhand under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and other related offences and were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2012 and 2014. Petitioner No. 4, however, was convicted under Sections 376 and 346 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment in 2018. Each of them had already served over a decade in actual custody (which includes the period of incarceration pending trial) when they sought to prefer criminal appeals before the High Court of Jharkhand, where arguments were heard, and judgments were reserved in their appeals, seemingly, between January and June 2022.

3.2. Owing to the undue delay in pronouncing the reserved judgments, the Petitioners have approached this Court by means of the instant petitions, seeking appropriate directions to the High Court to pronounce the same expeditiously.

3.3. This Court, on the first date of hearing, on 23.04.2025, directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand to submit a report on all cases in which judgments were reserved more than two months ago and were pending pronouncement, along with Bench-wise details.

3.4. In compliance thereof, the Registrar General submitted a status report, which was taken on record by this Court on 05.05.2025. The report inter alia disclosed that 56 matters, including criminal appeals, had been finally heard by a Division Bench of the High Court on various dates between 04.01.2022 and 16.12.2024, with final pronouncements still awaited in each. Further, 11 matters were reserved by a Single Judge Bench on dates ranging from 25.07.2024 to 27.09.2024. The details of the appeals preferred by the Petitioners, however, were not included in the said report.

3.5. On the same date, we were apprised of an article published in the Indian Express, an English-language daily newspaper, titled “After SC rap, HC decides 75 Criminal Appeals in a week”, indicating that the High Court had pronounced a re