The Supreme Court on Friday issued sweeping and binding directions to all high courts across the country mandating that bail applications be decided on the same day or, at the latest, within 24 hours of hearing, while also fixing a strict three-month outer limit for pronouncement of reserved judgments.
In a landmark attempt to tackle judicial delays affecting personal liberty and speedy justice, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to frame a nationwide framework governing timelines, transparency and accountability in judicial functioning, holding that intervention by the apex court had become necessary “for complete justice to the parties”.
The judgment, which will operate as binding law for all high courts, introduces enforceable remedies for litigants, automated monitoring mechanisms and even reassignment of cases from judges who fail to pronounce judgments within stipulated timelines. Advocate Fauzia Shakil assisted the court as amicus curiae.
The bench directed that in all matters where judgment is reserved, high courts “shall endeavour” to pronounce a reasoned judgment within a maximum period of three months from the date on which the matter was reserved.
Special emphasis was laid on cases involving personal liberty. The court said high courts must display “extra promptitude” in matters relating to regular bail, anticipatory bail, criminal appeals where the convict is in custody, and death reference cases.
“As soon as the bail application is heard, the order should preferably be pronounced and uploaded on the same day…If the order is reserved, it is expected to be pronounced on the next day and uploaded to the website,” the bench directed.
In another major reform affecting undertrials and convicts, the bench directed that orders granting bail, suspending sentence or acquitting a convict in custody must be communicated to jail authorities and trial courts on the very date of pronouncement.
The court further mandated that undertrials or convicts must ordinarily be released the same day or, at the latest, on the next day, unless they are required in some other case or delay occurs in compliance with bail conditions. The trial court has additionally been directed to report compliance of such release orders back to the high court bench which passed the order.
Recognising recurring delays in uploading detailed judgments even after operative portions are pronounced, the Supreme Court allowed high courts to pronounce only the operative part in urgent matters where delay could cause “irreparable loss” to parties, but fixed a rigid timeline for uploading detailed reasons.
The reasoned judgment, the court said, must ordinarily be uploaded within seven days and, where practical difficulties arise, within a maximum of 15 days.
The judgment specifically identified habeas corpus petitions, criminal appeals involving acquittal of convicts in custody, demolition and eviction matters, educational admissions and other urgent cases as situations where such immediate operative directions may become necessary.
The bench also made it mandatory for every reasoned judgment pronounced in open court to be uploaded on the high court website within 24 hours.
The court simultaneously introduced an elaborate accountability mechanism to monitor delayed judgments. It directed all chief justices of high courts, on the administrative side, to ensure technological modifications in high court websites so that automated emails are generated every month containing details of all reserved judgments pending during that month. These automated alerts are to be sent both to the chief justice and the bench concerned.
The judgment further permits chief justices to confidentially circulate among judges details of cases in which judgments have remained pending for more than two months after reserving. If a judgment is still not delivered after three months, the registrar general of the high court has been directed to place the matter before the chief justice, who must bring the delay to the notice of the concerned bench and require pronouncement within two additional weeks. Should the judgment still remain pending thereafter, the chief justice may assign the case to another bench altogether for fresh hearing and disposal, the top court added.
Where the operative part is pronounced but the reasoned judgment is not uploaded within 15 days, the registrar general must place the matter before the chief justice, who will then direct the concerned bench to upload the judgment within three more days, the court said.
Significantly, the Supreme Court also created enforceable rights and remedies for litigants affected by judicial delays. It held that where judgment is not pronounced within three months from reserving, parties may file an application before the high court seeking early pronouncement.
Such applications must be listed before the concerned bench within two days excluding holidays, while the registry must simultaneously inform the chief justice regarding all such applications. If judgment still remains pending after three-and-a-half months, parties would be entitled to move the chief justice seeking withdrawal of the matter from the concerned bench and reassignment to another bench for fresh hearing.
Likewise, where a reasoned judgment is not uploaded within 15 days of pronouncement of the operative part, litigants may seek early uploading through an application before the high court. If even after one month the detailed judgment remains unavailable, parties may request reassignment of the matter to another bench.
The court also ordered sweeping transparency reforms in judicial record-keeping and case-status systems. It directed that certified copies of judgments must now compulsorily mention the date on which judgment was reserved, the date on which it was pronounced and the date on which it was uploaded. Where only the operative portion is initially pronounced, that date would count as the date of pronouncement while the later upload date would separately reflect the date of uploading of the detailed judgment.
The bench further mandated that immediately after conclusion of final hearings, the high court website must reflect that judgment has been reserved. If only the operative part has been delivered, the case status must expressly state so.
Upon uploading of the reasoned judgment, automated email and SMS notifications are also to be sent to advocates representing parties in the matter.
The judgment originated from proceedings initiated earlier this year when the Supreme Court, while hearing a case arising out of Jharkhand, noticed several criminal appeals involving life convicts where judgments had remained reserved for years after hearings concluded.
