NEW DELHI: Terming the practice of high courts reserving judgments for months without pronouncing them as an “identifiable ailment”, the Supreme Court on Tuesday stressed that such delays must be eradicated to ensure better dispensation of justice to litigants.
A three-judge bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi heard a plea alleging that the Jharkhand High Court orally pronounced a judgment dismissing a petition on December 4 last year, but the verdict has not been uploaded.
The Chief Justice of India said there were those who reserve judgments but deliver them, and those who delay indefinitely. “This is a challenge before the judiciary, and this is an identifiable ailment. It has to be treated and eradicated, and it cannot be allowed to spread,” he said.
Citing experience, the CJI said that in his 15-year career as a high court judge, he had never reserved a judgment and had never failed to deliver it within three months.
The bench directed that a complete judgment be provided to counsel by next week-end. Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi called the delay “playing with the majesty of law”.
Observing the issue was systemic rather than personal, the CJI said he would raise the issue in a meeting with the chief justices of state high courts.
The bench noted that the Jharkhand High Court’s judgment dated December 4, 2025, had yet to be uploaded, saying there was “no rhyme or reason for such delay.” The matter is listed for the week beginning February 16.
In November 2025, the Supreme Court directed high courts to submit reports on the timelines for reserved judgments, including the dates of reservation, pronouncement, and uploading, with compliance to be monitored and certified copies required to record all three dates.
Also in top court
SC asks UP govt why IPC provisions not invoked
The Supreme Court on Tuesday questioned the Uttar Pradesh government as to why appropriate provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) were not invoked in an FIR lodged in an alleged hate crime in Noida in 2021. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was told by Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, who appeared for Uttar Pradesh, that they have initiated an inquiry against the concerned investigating officer.