Delayed Justice Defeats Justice: Supreme Court Slams Delay in Pronouncement of Reserved Judgments, Issues Binding Guidelines to High Courts

“It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year after being reserved”— Supreme Court of India delivered a stern and landmark pronouncement rebuking the inordinate delay by the Allahabad High Court in delivering a judgment that had been reserved as far back as 24th December 2021. The Court, comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Sanjay Karol, reiterated that judgments must be pronounced within a reasonable period, and went on to reaffirm and reinforce the binding directions earlier issued in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318.

“No Mechanism in High Courts to Report Delay in Delivery of Judgments—This Defeats the Ends of Justice”

The case emerged from a long-pending criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court, where despite arguments having been concluded in December 2021, no judgment had been delivered, prompting multiple representations from the de facto complainant, Ravindra Pratap Shahi, seeking expeditious disposal. The appellant had approached the High Court on nine occasions, but each time, the matter was not taken up, and eventually re-listed before a different bench without decision.

The Supreme Court observed: “It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard.”

Expressing deep concern, the Court acknowledged a growing and systemic delay in delivery of reserved judgments:

“This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three months, in some cases for more than six months or years... the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice.”

“Pronouncement of Judgment is an Integral Part of the Justice Delivery System”

Reiterating its earlier decision in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court emphasized:

“It is the policy and purpose of law to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice.”

The Court quoted the binding guidelines from Anil Rai, especially:

1. Judgment reserved and pronounced later must indicate date of reserving and date of pronouncement on the first page.

2. Monthly lists of reserved but undelivered judgments must be compiled by Court Officers and submitted to the Chief Justice.

3. If a judgment is not pronounced within two months, the Chief Justice should alert the Bench.

4. If six months lapse, any party may request re-assignment of the case to another Bench for re-hearing.

5. Upon such request, the Chief Justice may withdraw the case and reassign as deemed fit.

The Court stressed: “Such guidelines... shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate of this Court.”

“Delay in Pronouncing Judgment Erodes Public Confidence in the Judiciary”

The judgment warns against the devastating consequences of prolonged delays in the pronouncement of judgments:

“Delay in disposal of cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely, which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system.”

The Court also deprecated the practice of High Courts pronouncing final orders without reasoned judgments, which denies the aggrieved party an opportunity for appeal or review. Referring to precedents including State of Punjab vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi and Zahira Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, the Court held:

“Depriving the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal by delaying the judgment is unacceptable.”

“Registrar Generals Must Now Submit Monthly Compliance Reports on Reserved Judgments”

To enforce transparency and administrative accountability, the Supreme Court issued fresh directives:

“We direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month...”

The Court mandated that if the judgment is not delivered within three months, the matter must be placed before the Chief Justice, who shall direct the concerned Bench to pronounce the order within two weeks, failing which it must be assigned to another Bench.

This directive is in addition to those issued in Anil Rai and applies uniformly to all High Courts.

“Litigants Deserve Speedy and Reasoned Justice—Not Endless Waits”

This judgment marks a decisive moment in judicial reform, reiterating that justice delayed is not just denied—but nullified. By strengthening institutional accountability and providing litigants with a clear remedy in cases of judicial delay, the Court has protected faith in the system.

The Appeals were disposed of with strong directions and a copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to all Registrar Generals of High Courts for strict compliance.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2025