NEW DELHI: The SC expressed serious concern over the growing practice by few state High Courts in pronouncing operative parts of its verdicts but uploading detailed judgments on its website months or even years later.
The Supreme Court recently in its order, said this practice was a "matter of grave concern," and "such delays deprive litigants of their right to seek timely judicial redress."
"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. The reasoned judgment is uploaded only after a substantial length of time. This practice has been deprecated by the Court in many of its judgments and orders," said the two-judge Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta in its September 2 order.
The Bench also expressed its hope in its order that it 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, the top court said.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by one Rajan, challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that upheld his conviction in a 1998 murder case.
Notably, the Bench was only reiterating the directions already laid down in Anil Rai vs State of Bihar.
According to First Information Report (FIR), the appellant Rajan attempted to fire at the victim with a pistol but missed the target. In the case, a trial court convicted him. Aggrieved by this order, Rajan challenged it before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed his conviction.
But, at the same time, surprisingly, the HC failed in its duty to upload the reasoned judgment of upholding his conviction.
Following this, Rajan knocked the doors of the Supreme Court and argued that a delay of two years and five months in uploading the High Court’s reasoned judgment caused grave prejudice, and that no firearm was recovered from him.
"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 cognisance of this delay at the instance of the High Court," the Court said. The top court, however, clarified in its order that delay alone cannot be a ground to set aside a conviction unless prejudice is shown.
"We have reached at 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 Court noted.
Accordingly, the top court dismissed the appeal and directed circulation of its judgment to all High Courts.