SC sets 3-month deadline for HCs on reserved judgments

The Supreme Court has directed all High Courts across the country to pronounce judgments within three months of reserving them. The Apex Court also noted that delays in the delivery of judgments can cause irreparable harm to litigants. Underlining that faster decisions are required in cases of personal liberty, a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Baghchi on Friday said that orders in bail applications should be pronounced the same day, and if they are reserved, they must be pronounced and uploaded the next day. Issuing a slew of directions, the top court said that the order of bail or sentence suspension should be communicated to the jail authorities as soon as it is pronounced, and the under-trial convict should be released, preferably the same day or at most the next day. The court specifically identified matters concerning demolition, eviction, admissions to educational institutions and bail as categories where urgent operative directions may become necessary.
If reserved judgment is not delivered within 3 months, the Registrar General shall placed the matter before the Chief Justice for orders, and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the bench within 2 weeks thereafter. If it is still not delivered within 2 weeks thereafter, the Chief Justice may assign the case to another bench with notification to the advocates and parties. The new bench may rehear the case and pronoucne the judgment promptly. The certified copy of the judgments shall mention the date of reserving the judgment, the date of pronouncing the judgment, and the date of uploading the judgment. Where the operative portion of the judgment has already been delivered, the date of pronouncing the operative part shall be the date of pronouncement, and the date on which the reasoned judgment is delivered shall be the date of uploading.
The matter arose from a writ petition filed by four convicts belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes who alleged that their criminal appeals, reserved by the Jharkhand High Court in 2022, remained pending for two to three years without judgment. They argued that such delays violated their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, including the right to a speedy trial, which extends to appellate proceedings.