Constitutional courts should not prescribe time-bound schedules for the disposal of cases in subordinate courts unless faced with truly exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, as judicial scheduling remains the prerogative of the respective trial courts.

JUDGMENT

Accused Nos.6 to 8 in S.C.No.1854/2025 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara, have filed this original petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the said court to dispose of the aforesaid case within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

3. As per the judgment rendered in Allahabad High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (6) SCC 267], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned the constitutional courts from prescribing time limits for the disposal of the cases pending before the courts below, unless there are compelling reasons to adopt such a course.

4. Paragraph Nos. 32 and 33 of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association (supra), are extracted hereunder:-

“32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time - bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out - of - turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out - of - turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day - to - day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.”

5. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, it is not possible for this court to prescribe a time limit for the disposal of S.C.No.1854/2025 before the Additional Sessions Court, Neyyattinkara. It appears that the reasons stated by the petitioners for the speedy disposal of the aforesaid case is that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are Doctors by profession, and the 2nd petitioner is an IT professional. Having regard to the exigencies of the work of the petitioners, the Trial Court shall consider dispensing with personal appearance of the petitioners on the posting dates before the framing of charges and commencement of trial.

With the above observations, this original petition stands closed.