The Supreme Court recently expressed its disappointment with a trial court judge who refused to proceed with a case, citing that the deadline set by the apex court for its disposal had passed. The Court stated that a judge cannot simply declare they have lost jurisdiction over a matter.

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale was dismayed by the judge’s decision, stating,

“We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed.”, the court observed.

This incident highlights that deadlines fixed by higher courts are meant as guidelines to ensure timely justice. A trial judge must still hear and decide cases even if those deadlines have already passed.

Background:

The bench was hearing a miscellaneous application in a criminal appeal. Earlier, in an order dated January 18, 2024, the Supreme Court had directed the Judicial Magistrate of the 4th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, to dispose of case AC-2053/2017 within six weeks.

Finding the trial judge’s approach and conduct unusual, the bench directed the concerned District Judge to request an explanation from the judge. The order specifically stated,

“He has to state as to why and under what circumstances, he has reported that he has ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter and would not proceed any further thereof.” A report is to be submitted to the Supreme Court within a month.

Case Title- SHIV KUMAR SHAW & ANR. VERSUS REKHA SHAW

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy, AOR Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shambo Nandy , AOR