In a rare and stern move, the Supreme Court has ordered the seizure of a stenographer's book from a High Court judge's secretary to determine the actual date when an order was typed and uploaded. The case revolves around a delay in uploading an order from the Punjab and Haryana High Court regarding the rejection of an anticipatory bail plea.
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, noted that the High Court order, dated July 31, 2025, was not available on the High Court's website until August 20, 2025. This significant delay prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the registrar general of the High Court. The report revealed that the registrar general had requested an explanation from the judge's secretary on August 22, 2025.
The secretary's response failed to clarify when the order was uploaded, only stating that the judge had been undergoing medical treatment and surgery between August 1 and August 20, 2025. The Supreme Court noted that the order was uploaded on the same day the secretary submitted the explanation, a fact that was not mentioned by the secretary. This sequence of events led the Supreme Court to suspect that the order might not have been passed on July 31, 2025, as claimed, but rather after the Supreme Court had already intervened in the matter.
Expressing concern over the delay and the circumstances surrounding it, the Supreme Court directed the seizure of the secretary's steno book to ascertain when the order was typed and corrected on the computer. The court also ordered a "discreet inquiry" and requested a report from the National Informatics Centre (NIC) regarding the typing and uploading of the order, to be filed on affidavit.
The Supreme Court's intervention came while hearing a plea against the rejection of anticipatory bail for a man. The bench issued a notice, including to the state of Haryana, and scheduled a hearing after four weeks. As an interim measure, the court directed that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner concerning the FIR lodged in Faridabad, provided the petitioner cooperates with the investigation.
The petitioner had informed the Supreme Court on August 20, 2025, that the High Court order from July 31, 2025, had not been uploaded to the website. The Supreme Court criticized the delay, stating that immediate action was not taken and that the sequence of events cast doubt on whether the order existed before the Supreme Court's involvement.
In addition to directing the inquiry in this specific case, the Supreme Court has also taken steps to address delays in pronouncements more broadly. The court has directed registrar generals of all High Courts to regularly submit lists of pending reserved judgments to their Chief Justices for monitoring. The Chief Justice is then required to bring the matter to the attention of the concerned bench, which should pronounce the order within two weeks. If that deadline is not met, the matter should be assigned to another bench. This directive reinforces similar instructions issued by the Supreme Court in 2011.
The Supreme Court's actions highlight its concern regarding delays in the judicial process and the importance of maintaining public trust in the justice system. The court emphasized that timely pronouncements of judgments are an essential part of the justice delivery system.
