Gauhati High Court Issues Ultimatum to State Authorities over Persistent Delays in Filing Instructions

GUWAHATI – In a recent procedural development before the Gauhati High Court , Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair has signaled a zero-tolerance approach toward governmental delays. The court recently intervened in Prasanta Kumar Borah vs. The State of Assam and 4 Ors. (WP(C) 3034/2025), addressing the recurring failure of state respondents to provide necessary instructions in a timely manner.

The Conflict: A Case of Procedural Stagnation

The petitioner, Prasanta Kumar Borah, brought the matter before the Court seeking relief. However, proceedings have been effectively stalled by the absence of critical documentation from the State government. Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate B.D. Konwar, represented that despite having been granted multiple opportunities to finalize their instructions, the respondent authorities have consistently failed to place the required materials on record.

During the hearing on February 27, 2026, the state’s representative, Mr. D. Bora, acknowledged the delay, citing that while the matter had been taken up with the relevant departments, a formal communication only materialized on February 25, 2026.

Judicial Stance on Bureaucratic Delay

The High Court expressed clear dissatisfaction with the pace at which state departments are addressing their litigation obligations. Justice Nair made it explicitly clear that the court’s patience is nearing its end. The Bench noted that the state’s continued failure to comply with the court's evidentiary requirements undermines the fundamental efficiency of the judicial process.

The Court’s approach highlights the tension between standard bureaucratic procedures and the urgent nature of writ petitions. By warning the respondents that an interim order may be passed in the absence of requested instructions, the Court has effectively shifted the burden onto the State to ensure compliance before the next hearing.

Key Observations

The gravity of the situation was underscored by the Court’s firm directive:

• "Repeated opportunities have been granted to the learned counsel for the respondents to complete their instructions in the matter. However, the instructions sought for by this Court has not been placed on record."
• "In the event, the instructions sought are not placed on record, this Court would consider the prayer of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner for an interim direction in the matter."

The Road Ahead

The matter is now slated for further consideration on the next hearing date. For practitioners, this case serves as a poignant reminder of the judiciary's increasing focus on operational efficiency. Should the state fail to meet this latest deadline, the issuance of an interim direction could set a significant precedent in this matter, potentially forcing the government to fast-track its internal decision-making processes to avoid prejudicial court orders.

As the legal community watches the outcome of this case, it remains a clear example of the judiciary asserting its authority to ensure that the machinery of the State does not impede the pursuit of justice for the individual litigant.