By recently directing all high courts to pronounce judgements within three months of reserving orders, the Supreme Court has created a framework aimed at reducing pendency. Writing for the Bench, Chief Justice Surya Kant avoided naming and shaming errant courts while stressing judicial deliberation. The guidelines were issued after studying a report on judicial delays as of May 5, 2025.
A division bench of the Jharkhand High Court was sitting on 56 matters, including criminal appeals, after completing hearings between January 4, 2022 and December 16, 2024. Likewise, a single-judge bench of the same court had reserved orders on 11 matters despite hearing them between July 25, 2024 and September 27, 2024. Finding itself under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny, the same high court moved swiftly, pronouncing judgements in over 75 criminal appeals within a week.
The Supreme Court’s move was much needed. The wait for final judgements delayed everything, testing the patience of parties and affecting the judicial system. Reserved judgements left pending for months, or years, undermine confidence and prolong uncertainty after hearings conclude.
The apex court’s verdict urged high courts to be more empathetic in matters of personal liberty, such as regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal appeals and death references. The guidelines mandated that courts preferably pronounce and upload orders on the same day the bail hearing concludes. Orders granting regular bail, suspending sentence or acquitting a convict in custody must be communicated to jail authorities and the trial court on the date of pronouncement. An undertrial or convict granted relief must be released on the same day or the next day, unless required to stay in custody in another case. Where orders are reserved, a reasoned judgement should be pronounced within three months, with remedies prescribed if the threshold is crossed. In urgent matters, the operative part may be pronounced and the full verdict uploaded within 7-15 days.
The judgement strengthens litigants’ ability to hold the higher judiciary accountable for delays. Equally important, it recognises excessive judicial delay as a violation of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. It also underlines that justice is complete only when judgements are delivered. By setting timelines, the court has acknowledged that delayed decisions can themselves become a source of pendency. Courts are institutions of trust; timely rulings are essential to sustaining public confidence.
