Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan vs State of Jharkhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 651

SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Mr. Aalok Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vanya Gupta, AOR Ms. Fauzia Shakil, AOR Ms. Tasmiya Taleha, Adv. Ms. Mallika Aggarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Pallavi Langar, AOR Mr. P S Sudheer, Adv. Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR Ms. Neeti Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Mr. Sankalp Mahindru, Adv. Mr. Aditya Malhotra, Adv. Mr. Govind Rishi, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Dipesh Sinha, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Barua, Adv. Ms. Aparna Singh, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Sawan Datta, Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Shireesha Sharma, Adv. Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mrs. Vandana Gupta, Adv. Mr. Rahul Gupta, AOR Mr. B. Shravanth Shanker, AOR Ms. Prerna Robin, Adv. Ms. Grahita Agarwal, Adv. Mr. B. Yeshwanth Raj, Adv. Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. Anupam Mishra, Adv. Mr. Chakma Purnojyoti, Adv. Mr. Ravi Raghunath, AOR Mr. Namanjeet Singh Bhatia, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, AOR Ms. Pritama, Adv. Ms. Shaivani Gupta, Adv. Dr. Sunita, Adv. Mr. Sufyan Hasan, Adv. Ms. Hema Malik, Adv. Mr. Bipin Vinayak Chandan, Adv. Mr. Deepayan Mandal, AOR Mr. Mridul Bansal, Adv. Mr. Naman Varma, Adv. Mr. Aryan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Robin Kumar, Adv. Ms. Shweta Jayshankar Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Tanay Hegde, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Amruta Arjun Garg, Adv. Ms. Arushi Kulshrestha, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. Muskan Bensla, Adv. Ms. Mrinmoyee Das, Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.

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 treat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 651

SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHIPila Pahan @ Peela Pahan – AppellantVersusState of Jharkhand – Respondent

Cases Referred (3)

SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent