Despite the Supreme Court's efforts to establish clear timelines for High Courts to deliver reserved verdicts, compliance remains a challenge, even after nearly 24 years since the initial guidelines were issued. The Supreme Court has voiced strong concerns regarding the persistent delays by High Courts in pronouncing judgments after hearings, cautioning that such delays erode the public's faith in the judicial system.

In 2001, the Supreme Court, in the Anil Rai case, addressed the troubling practice of judges reserving verdicts only to delay or neglect their pronouncement, sometimes delivering only the operative portions with promised detailed reasons that never materialized. To tackle this issue, the Supreme Court laid out five guidelines, which included mandates for High Court Chief Justices to remind judges if decisions were not delivered within two months of being reserved. The guidelines also permitted litigants to request an early judgment if it was not delivered within three months of being reserved.

However, these guidelines have not been consistently followed. A recent case before a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, highlighted this issue when they discovered that an Allahabad High Court bench had not delivered a judgment almost a year after reserving it. Justice Mishra noted the absence of a mechanism in most High Courts for litigants to bring such delays to the attention of the concerned bench or the Chief Justice.

Expressing shock and concern over the delay in the delivery of judgments by the High Courts, the Supreme Court has issued further directions to combat such a problem. The Apex Court has directed that if a reserved judgment is not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place the matter before the Chief Justice for orders, and the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter shall be assigned to another Bench.

Reaffirming such directions, the Bench held that if the judgment is not delivered within three months, the Chief Justice shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter shall be assigned to another Bench. The Bench thus disposed of the appeal and also added, “The above direction is in addition to the guidelines/directions issued by this Court in Anil Rai (supra.)”. “Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for compliance”, it concluded.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that delays in delivering judgments can shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system. The Court has also stated that it is repeatedly confronted with similar situations where judgments are not delivered for months or even years after being reserved and highlighted the lack of a mechanism in most High Courts for litigants to formally bring such delays to the notice of the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice. The judgment stated, “In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice”.

To address the issue, the Supreme Court has directed the Registrar General of every High Court to furnish a monthly list to the Chief Justice of cases where judgments have been reserved but not pronounced. If a judgment remains undelivered after three months, the matter must be brought before the Chief Justice, who will then direct the concerned Bench to pronounce the order within two weeks. If this deadline is not met, the case is to be assigned to a different Bench for fresh arguments. The Supreme Court has also allowed parties to file an application in the High Court, praying for an early judgment if the judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it.

In a related development, the Supreme Court had earlier directed all High Courts to submit reports on pending cases with reserved judgments as of January 31, 2025. This directive came in response to a writ petition concerning delayed judgments in the Jharkhand High Court. The Supreme Court's continued intervention underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing the issue of delayed verdicts and ensuring timely justice for litigants.