CJI flags delay in reserved judgments; issue to be raised with HC chiefs

Chief Justice of India reiterates concern over delays in pronouncing reserved judgments, says issue will be discussed at High Court Chief Justices' conference

The Chief Justice of India (CJI) on Tuesday reiterated his concern over prolonged delays by some High Court judges in pronouncing verdicts after reserving matters, and said the issue would be taken up at the forthcoming conference of High Court Chief Justices on February 7 and 8.

 

“This is also one of the agenda items which we have already flagged and would like to discuss,” the CJI said.

 

The observations came during the hearing of a writ petition filed by four convicts who had challenged the Jharkhand High Court’s failure to decide their criminal appeals for more than three years.

 

Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the High Court eventually delivered the judgments. The apex court has since broadened the scope of the case to examine delays in reserved judgments across all High Courts and had earlier sought status reports from each of them.

 

At Tuesday’s hearing, advocate-on-record Fauzia Shakil, appearing as amicus curiae, placed on record a compilation of responses received from all High Courts.

 

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing in a connected matter, told the court that although a High Court judge had orally pronounced the decision on December 4, the written judgment had still not been uploaded on the court’s website.

 

“The Chief Justice should look into this; it is demeaning for the court to do this. Some message has to go. What do we tell the client? This type of litigation does not add to the dignity of the institution,” Rohatgi submitted.

 

Responding, the CJI remarked that the justice delivery system currently grapples with differing judicial work cultures.

 

“There are two types of judges. One category consists of very hardworking judges — they hear several matters, reserve many cases, and are conscious of their writing capacity. But there are judges who, unfortunately, do not deliver judgments, and that creates problems. This is not about any individual. It is an identifiable systemic setback, and it must be cured very effectively. It requires serious cooperation,” he said.

 

When Rohatgi urged the court to lay down strict timelines for the pronouncement of judgments, Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that such directions already exist in multiple earlier rulings.

 

The CJI also flagged a newer practice adopted by some High Court judges, where matters are repeatedly listed in the main cause list and adjourned instead of being formally reserved for judgment. He noted that this approach appears designed to bypass Supreme Court directions aimed at preventing delays in reserved matters.

 

The court invited suggestions on two aspects: first, situations where cases are adjourned for “directions” despite being ripe for final hearing and reservation; and second, whether judgments should ordinarily be ready in full at the time of pronouncement for the benefit of lawyers, barring exceptional circumstances.

 

Clarifying the second point, the CJI said that “unique urgency”, such as cases involving demolition or bail, may justify pronouncing only the operative portion, but even in such cases, the reasoned judgment must follow within two months.

 

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 16.