Appeal
1. The instant proceedings arise from various Writ Petitions which, though individual in origin, sought similar prayers for “pronouncement of reserved judgements” statedly pending for indefinite periods of time before certain High Courts. The influx of these cases, coupled with the startling picture presented regarding delays, brought into focus a broader issue affecting the administration of justice in several High Courts across the country.
2. In view of this, the scope of the proceedings was expanded to address a question of wider constitutional significance. The objective was to identify and lay down comprehensive and binding guidelines to remedy the persistent delay in the pronouncement of reserved judgements by High Courts, so as to ensure that the reliefs claimed are not rendered nugatory merely owing to the delayed delivery of the final decision.
Appointment of amicus curiae
3.10. In this backdrop, we requested Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned Advocate, to assist this Court in the capacity of Amicus Curiae. Pursuantly, Ms. Fauzia, with the able assistance of Ms. Tasmiya Taleha and Ms. Mallika Agarwal, painstakingly analysed the reports received from various High Courts and pointed out that the information had been submitted in varying formats, thereby making collation difficult. In view thereof, vide order dated 22.09.2025, all High Courts were requested to modify the existing format to ensure that uploaded and certified copies of their judgments clearly disclose the date of reservation, the date of pronouncement, and the date of uploading on the website, along with a specification as to whether the operative part alone or the full judgment had been pronounced.
3.11. The learned Amicus thereafter compiled and filed a consolidated report in four volumes, containing a High Court-wise analysis of delayed pronouncements. The learned Amicus was further requested vide order dated 16.02.2026 to consolidate all the suggestions and recommendations received from the High Courts for the issuance of uniform general judicial guidelines.
3.12. Learned Amicus accordingly submitted the draft guidelines, which were directed to be circulated to the Registrars General of all the High Courts for their respective suggestions, and the matter was thereupon reserved for orders.
Analysis
4. Having considered the material on record, along with the suggestions received from several High Courts in response to the draft guidelines circulated by the learned Amicus, we are of the view that this is a fit case warranting the intervention of this Court to formulate uniform guidelines to address delays in pronouncing reserved judgements across all High Courts in the country.
5. At the outset, we record our appreciation for the assistance rendered by Ms. Fauzia Shakil, learned Amicus Curiae. She, together with her team, was entrusted with the arduous task of collating, verifying, and analysing data received from various High Courts, as well as proposing guidelines for uniform application. Their diligence and thoughtful contributions proved invaluable to the effective conduct of these proceedings.
16. To that end, and in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, we hereby issue the following comprehensive guidelines, which shall hereafter operate as binding directions upon all High Courts across the country:
A. Procedural Timelines re Pronouncement of Judgements/Orders
I. Timelines a. In a matter where the judgement is reserved, the High Court shall endeavour to pronounce a reasoned judgement promptly, within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of reserving such judgement.
b. The High Courts shall display extra promptitude in pronouncing judgements and orders in matters of personal liberty, e.g. regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal appeals (where the convict is in custody), death references, etc.
c. As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day. In the event the order is reserved, it is expected to be pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website.
d. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence, or acquitting a convict in custody should be communicated to the jail authorities and the Trial Court on the date it is pronounced.
e. Consequent upon the outcome of serial number (d) above, the undertrial/convict must be released on the same day or, at most, on the next day, unless they are required to be taken in custody in another case, or there is a delay in complying with the bail conditions, etc.
f. The compliance with the order must be reported by the Trial Court to the Bench of the High Court that passed the order.
g. In the event the judgment in a criminal appeal/death reference is reserved, and the appellant is in custody, the clarifications, if any, required by the Bench from the advocates be sought within 7 days of the date of reserving the judgment.
h. In all other matters, the clarifications, if any, should be sought not beyond 1 month of the date of reserving the judgment.
i. Where, after hearing the parties, the Bench is of the opinion that any delay in pronouncement of a reasoned judgement will cause irreparable loss to the parties and urgent orders are required, the operative part may be pronounced in Court, and the reasoned judgement be uploaded within 7 days or a maximum of 15 days, if practical difficulties are faced by the High Court. Such cases may include habeas corpus matters, criminal appeals resulting in the acquittal of a convict in custody, matters relating to demolition/eviction, matters relating to admission to educational institutions, or other urgent cases.
j. A reasoned judgement pronounced in open court should be uploaded on the High Court website within 24 hours.
II. Accountability
a. The Chief Justices of the High Courts, on the administrative side, are requested to make necessary changes to the High Court website, where at the end of every month, an automated email is sent to the Chief Justice of the High Court, specifying all the reserved judgements pending in that month, along with a copy of the email to the Bench that has reserved the judgement.
b. The Chief Justice of the High Court may also circulate the statement of the cases, in which the judgments have not been pronounced within 2 months from the date of reserving such judgment, amongst the Judges of the High Court for their information. The communication shall be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.
c. In the event the reserved judgment is not delivered within 3 months, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders, and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the judgment within 2 weeks thereafter.
d. In the event the reserved judgment is still not delivered within the extended period of 2 weeks, the Chief Justice should assign the case to another Bench with a notification to the advocates and the parties. The new Bench to which the matter is assigned shall obviously rehear the case and pronounce the judgment promptly.
e. Where the operative part of the judgement has been pronounced in open court, and the reasoned judgement is not uploaded within 15 days, the Registrar General shall place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders, and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for uploading the reasoned judgement within the next 3 days.
III. Remedies
a. In case the judgment is not pronounced upon the expiry of 3 months from the date of reserving, any party to the lis shall be entitled to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.
(ai) Such an application shall be listed before the concerned Bench within two days, excluding the intervening holidays.
(aii) The Registry shall inform the Chief Justice of the High Court of all such applications filed.
(aiii) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of 3 and a half months from the date of reserving, any party to the lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and make it over to any other Bench for fresh hearing.
b. In case the reasoned judgement is not uploaded upon the expiry of 15 days from the date of pronouncement of the operative part, any party to the lis is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgement.
(bi) Such an application shall be listed before the concerned Bench within two days, excluding the intervening holidays.
(bii) The Registry shall inform the Chief Justice of the High Court of all such applications filed.
(biii) If the reasoned judgement, for any reason, is not uploaded within 1 month from the date of pronouncement of the operative part, any party to the lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and make it over to any other Bench for fresh hearing.
B. Measures to Increase Transparency
I. Format of Judgements/Orders
a. The certified copy of the judgment should mention the date of reserving the judgment, the date of pronouncing the judgment, and the date of uploading the judgment.
b. Where the operative part of the judgement has already been delivered, the date of pronouncing the operative part shall be the date of pronouncement, and the date on which the reasoned judgement is uploaded will be the date of uploading.
II. Updates to the High Court Website
a. After the conclusion of final hearing, the date of reserving judgement must be reflected against the case status on the High Court website.
b. If only the operative part of the judgment is delivered, the case status on the High Court website must reflect accordingly.
c. When the reasoned judgement is uploaded on the website, an automated intimation through email/SMS be sent to the advocates representing the parties.
17. The Registrars General of the High Courts are directed to place these guidelines before the Chief Justices of their respective High Courts so that appropriate steps are taken to incorporate necessary amendments into the High Court Rules and their official websites.
Conclusion
23. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, the directions set out herein are intended to ensure that proceedings before the High Courts culminate in the pronouncement of judgements within a defined and reasonable timeframe. These measures are issued in the confidence that a structured framework will assist the High Courts in the consistent discharge of their constitutional responsibilities, while preserving the quality and deliberative character of judicial decision-making. We have every reason to believe that the High Courts will give effect to these directions fully and faithfully.
24. At this juncture, we clarify that the observations and directions issued hereinabove shall neither be construed nor interpreted as adverse remarks against the functioning or conduct of any learned Judge of the High Court of Jharkhand or of any other High Court. The aforesaid general directions are not intended to cast any aspersion upon, nor do they bear any nexus with, any individual learned Judge of a High Court.
25. In view thereof, the instant Writ Petitions are disposed of in terms of the directions issued in Paragraph 16.
Resources
Judgments Listed in the Text
- Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others vs. State of Jharkhand and another (Lead Case) – Citation: 2026 INSC 604 – Brief: In this ruling, the Supreme Court addressed the widespread issue of delayed delivery of reserved judgments across various High Courts. Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court formulated uniform, binding guidelines that mandate High Courts to pronounce reasoned judgments within a maximum of 3 months from reservation. It also set strict timelines for uploading judgments and fast-tracking orders involving personal liberty, such as bail applications.
- Anil Rai v. State of Bihar – Citation: (2001) 7 SCC 318 – Brief: A foundational 2-judge bench decision where the Supreme Court initially laid down systemic guidelines to handle delays in pronouncing judgments. It introduced tracking measures for High Court Chief Justices, allowed litigants to file for early disposal if a judgment was delayed past 3 months, and permitted requesting a re-hearing before a fresh bench if a judgment remained unpronounced for 6 months.
- Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat – Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2985 – Brief: This judgment supplemented the Anil Rai framework by outlining acceptable options for judges tackling heavy caseloads (such as pronouncing just the operative part of an order). It explicitly cautioned that if the operative part is delivered first, the fully reasoned judgment must enter the public domain within 2 to 5 days to maintain institutional transparency.
- Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P – Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1813 – Brief: A subsequent ruling wherein the Supreme Court reiterated the Anil Rai guidelines and insisted on tighter administrative oversight by High Court Chief Justices to monitor pending reserved matters.
- Rajan v. The State of Haryana – Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 3904/2025 – Brief: A criminal appeal in which the Supreme Court again reinforced the time-bound necessity of delivering reserved decisions, protecting the constitutional rights of litigants awaiting finality.
Acts and Sections
Constitution of India
- Article 21: Cited in the context that the right to life and personal liberty extends beyond just a speedy trial to encompass the timely pronouncement of reserved judgments; delays in this regard constitute a violation of this right.
- Article 142: Invoked by the Supreme Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to formulate and issue comprehensive, binding guidelines across all High Courts regarding the timelines for pronouncing reserved judgments.
- Articles 226 and 227: Referenced to highlight the exceptionally wide amplitude of jurisdiction held by the High Courts when dealing with a vast array of disputes and constitutional challenges.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 302: Mentioned as the offence (murder) for which Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, and 3 were convicted by the Trial Courts in Jharkhand, resulting in life imprisonment sentences.
- Sections 346 and 376: Mentioned as the offences (wrongful confinement in secret and rape) for which Petitioner No. 4 was convicted and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- General Reference: The document notes that the CrPC does not contemplate a specific statutory time limit for the pronouncement of judgments by High Courts, necessitating the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
- Section 353(1): Referenced in the footnotes concerning the statutory provisions for the delivery of judgments.
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)
- Section 392: Mentioned in the footnotes alongside other procedural laws concerning the statutory timelines and procedures for delivering judgments.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)
- General Reference: Similar to the CrPC, the text notes the absence of a strict timeframe for High Courts to pronounce judgments under the CPC.
- Order XX / Order XX Rule 1: Referenced both in the main text (quoting the Ratilal judgment) and in the footnotes, advising adherence to the procedural course envisaged for delivering judgments and outlining outcomes.
Party
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and others versus State of Jharkhand and another - Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 169 / 2025 (with the specific underlying criminal appeal numbers remaining unlisted in the provided judgment and official records) - 2026 INSC 604 - May 29, 2026 Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice Surya Kant and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi.
