1. Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned amicus curiae, has filed a brief compilation report based on the information received from different High Courts. It may be mentioned that the writ petitioners have approached this Court complaining that the judgments were not being pronounced, delivered, or issued in the cases, including their own, despite the fact that arguments had taken place years back. It is in this backdrop that all the High Courts were directed to furnish the information with respect to the pending judgments as well as those which have been pronounced after a cut - off date, along with the dates when such judgments were reserved. Subsequently, we had also asked the High Courts to furnish the dates when such judgments were uploaded on the websites.

2. Ms. Shakil points out that the complete reports from the High Courts of Kerala and Patna are still awaited, and 11 High Courts have not given dates of reserving judgments, where judgments have already been pronounced. She has explained that only the dates of pronouncement and uploading are given.

3. Since the information has been sent by the High Courts in different formats, the learned amicus has experienced genuine difficulty in collating the reports and then to analyze such reports.

4. In this regard, we permit Ms. Shakil to have the assistance of two young women lawyers, who have recently joined the Supreme Court Bar. She may furnish their names to the Secretary of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, who, in turn, shall appoint both the young lawyers as legal aid counsels and release the prescribed fee to them. Such appointment may be made after seeking prior approval of the Chairman of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

5. With the assistance of two junior counsel, we have impressed upon Ms. Shakil to prepare a format, which shall uniformally apply to all the High Courts. If the information furnished by the High Courts so far fits in within that format, it may be so collated. However, if some additional information is required in a compatible format, the learned amicus may apprise this Court so that necessary directions to the High Courts to furnish the requisite information can be issued. The High Courts may do the needful within four weeks.

6. Meanwhile, all the High Courts are directed to suitably modify their existing practice or formats to ensure that (i) the date when the judgment is reserved; (ii) the date when the judgment is pronounced; and (iii) the date when the judgment is uploaded on the website are clearly mentioned in the uploaded / certified copy of judgment. The High Court may do the needful within four weeks.

7. Learned amicus curiae has further pointed out that sometime, the Hon'ble Judges pronounce only the operative part of the judgment, which is duly reflected in the Case Status on the High Court Website. However, thereafter, the main judgment is either not uploaded or there is an inordinate delay in doing so. The revised format to be followed by the High Courts, therefore, will also have a column to specify whether the pronouncement was of the operative part only or whether the full judgment was pronounced.

8. In respect of the judgments where only the operative part has been pronounced and the reasoned judgment is yet to be issued, we may emphasis that this Court, in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and ors. v. State of Gujarat and ors., C.A. No.11000/2024, decided on 21/10/2024, has taken a view that the reasons ought to be uploaded within five days of the pronouncement of the operative part. The High Courts, therefore, are bound to follow the said dictum unless, on account of some practical difficulties that the High Courts might experience, this Court deems it appropriate to revise the timeline from five days to ten or fifteen days (maximum).

9. List on 10/11/2025 for further consideration.