The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta in their recent ruling emphasized that judgements must be pronounced and made accessible to the parties within a period of three-months from the date on which they are reserved.

The bench cautioned that , "We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced."

Background:

This matter arose before the court upon it being brought to notice that the Punjab and Haryana High court had delayed uploading a judgement by more than two years.

The case involved a criminal appeal in the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed the appellant's appeal on 18 February 2016 and affirmed that the appellant had been properly convicted. The reasoned judgement was published on the High Court website almost two years and five months later. This significant delay hindered the appellant to pursue further remedies effectively.

The appellant approached the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the conviction, on the ground of inordinate delay by the High Court in uploading the judgment, in addition to other substantive grounds on merits. The Apex Court however declined to intervene in the conviction, noting that a delay in uploading the judgment cannot invalidate a conviction if the judgment is otherwise valid.

The bench observed,“We have reached the conclusion that despite there being a delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment, the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing on record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render their testimony doubtful.”

“The delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2 years 5 months is a matter of grave concern. We should not overlook this fact. We have taken serious cognizance of this delay…”added the bench.

“Over a period of time, it has been the practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time the reasoned judgment is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this Court…” This practice of the High Courts deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court."added the bench.

Highlighting the importance of adhering to punctual judicial processes, the Court stated, "The guidelines and observations in Anil Rai (supra), remain fundamental to the course of dispensation of justice in any case before the Court, and the principle set out therein must be followed. This Court was concerned with an issue where an order was pronounced but even after more than three months, reasons were not forthcoming, and the Judgment was not available to either of the parties."

The bench referred to the recent directive in Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP, underscoring that if the judgment is not pronounced within three months of reserving the verdict, the Registrar must bring the matter to the attention of the High Court Chief Justice.

The judges further cited the recent directive in this case that mandates the Registrar to present the case to the Chief Justice of the High Court if the judgment is not delivered within three months from the date of reserving the decision.

The court voiced “grave concern” observing that such practices erode transparency and place litigants at a disadvantage. In the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, they stated,“Judgements must be delivered within three months of being reserved.”

Additionally, the bench also alluded to Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., which mandates that reasoned judgments must be provided within 2 to 5 days from pronouncing the operative portion.

Conclusively, the court dismissed the appeal but issued a firm reminder to the High courts about the necessity of timely judgment delivery, reinforcing the administration of justice and safeguarding litigants' rights.

---

Case Title: RAJAN VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Appearance: Advocate for appellant :Ms. Tarannum Cheema

Advocate for the State of Haryana: Mr. Deepak Thukral

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advocate for petitioners: Ms. Tarannum Cheema

Advocate for respondents: Mr. Deepak Thukral