Judgments reserved for months together: When the Supreme Court does not follow its own directions

In India, the judiciary is often regarded as the last bastion of hope for those seeking justice. However, the courts' inability to deliver judgments in a timely manner has become a pressing concern.

Courts often reserve judgments for an inordinate amount of time, only to deliver them months later.

On July 29, Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud orally remarked that the judgment reserved in a plea by the Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government against the appointment of ten aldermen by the Lieutenant Governor (LG) of Delhi to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) may be delivered on Monday, August 5.

The judgment in this case was reserved almost 15 months ago.

And this is not the only instance of delayed pronouncements in recent times.

Last year, on May 4, the top court had set aside an order by a magistrate in Kolkata directing a police investigation into an allegation of rape and criminal intimidation against BJP national general secretary Kailash Vijayvargiya and others. This judgment was reserved on December 8, 2021 and was delivered after 17 months.

On December 12 last year, a Constitution Bench of the top court headed by the CJI had reserved its verdict in the batch of petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955. More than seven months on, the judgment is yet to be pronounced.

In delaying the pronouncement of these verdicts, the apex court is not adhering to the guidelines issued by itself to the High Courts.

In 2000, the top court in Bhagwandas Fatehchand and Others v. HPA International and Others had specifically lamented the practice of constitutional courts reserving judgments for long durations. In this case, the High Court had delivered its judgment nearly five years after reserving the same. The Supreme Court said that a long delay in delivery of judgment gives rise to unnecessary speculations in the minds of parties to a case.

Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) is considered a landmark ruling on the issue of delay in delivery of judgment by the constitutional courts. In this case, the top court, while deciding an appeal against a Patna High Court judgment which was delivered two years after it was reserved, came down heavily on the High Court. The Court in this judgment issued directions to be followed by High Courts to ensure that verdicts are pronounced without delay.

"It is true, that for the High Courts, no period for pronouncement of judgment is contemplated either under the Civil Procedure Code or the Criminal Procedure Code, but as the pronouncement of the judgment is a part of the justice dispensation system, it has to be without delay...Delay in disposal of the cases facilitates the people to raise eyebrows, sometimes genuinely which, if not checked, may shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system...It is the policy and purpose of law, to have speedy justice for which efforts are required to be made to come up to the expectation of the society of ensuring speedy, untainted and unpolluted justice," the Court had said.

In Anil Rai, the Court said that if a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with a prayer for early judgment.

Further, the Court had said that if a judgment is not pronounced within a period of six months, the parties can move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case from the bench that reserved it and have it before another bench.

Since Anil Rai, the top court has time and again cautioned High Courts to ensure that judgments are delivered as early as possible. In 2015, it had asked all the judges of the High Courts to submit details of all verdicts that have not been pronounced even three months after the judgment was reserved.

In 2020, while considering an appeal against a decision of the Bombay High Court, the apex court noted that there was a nine-month gap between the delivering of the operative portion of the judgment and the reasoning that followed it. Placing reliance on Anil Rai, the Court had reiterated that delay in delivery of judgments by the High Courts is a violation of the parties' Right to Life under Article 21.

While hearing an appeal against a decision of the Allahabad High Court, the Court had frowned upon the delay by the High Court in delivering the decision six months after reserving it. The Court had said that the High Court must ensure that the judgment is delivered as soon as the arguments are concluded.

Ironically, Justice Shah, whose bench took 17 months to deliver a judgment (quoted above), was part of the bench in this case.

The Allahabad High Court was also rapped by the top court in 2023 when it failed to deliver its verdict in a criminal appeal six months after reserving it.

In April 2024, a bench led by CJI Chandrachud criticised a bench of the Gujarat High Court which had released a matter ten months after reserving the verdict in the same. While the top court acknowledged the burden on the High Courts, it opined that the case should be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as possible.

Even as it continues to advise High Courts on pronouncing judgments in a timely manner, the Supreme Court has not taken its own advice on board.

It may be argued that since the Supreme Court is the final destination for cases, it is necessary for it to take time in delivering its verdict. However, Article 141 of the Constitution does not distinguish the top court on this aspect. The directions issued by the top court in Anil Rai and other subsequent decisions on the topic apply to itself as well.

The judgment in Suresh Kumar Koushal v. Naz Foundation, a case which dealt with the constitutional validity of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, was reserved on March 27, 2012, but only came to be delivered on December 11, 2013 (almost 21 months later).

In 2017, when the Sabarimala issue came up before the top court, a three-judge bench reserved its order on whether the matter should be referred to a Constitution Bench on February 20, 2017. The verdict was delivered almost 8 months later on October 13, 2017.

This is not a trend only limited to cases of constitutional importance; even in civil disputes between private parties or land matters, we have seen that judgments are kept reserved by the top court for months together.

Apart from leaving litigants in the lurch, what are the consequences of delayed pronouncements? The Supreme Court in Anil Rai highlighted another drawback:

"Judges themselves normally forget the details of the facts and niceties of the legal points advanced. Sometimes the interval is so long that the Judges forget even the fact that such a case is pending with them expecting judicial verdict. Though it is an unpleasant fact, it is a stark reality."

The guidelines issued in Anil Rai and subsequent decisions aim to ensure that the right to speedy trial of litigants - considered as a facet of the right to life under Article 21 - is safeguarded. The financial cost incurred by litigants as a result of such delay is also to be considered. In an arbitration matter in which judgment was pronounced after a considerable delay, the Court said,

"Releasing a case after it has been heard over a substantial period and judgment has been reserved compounds not merely the delay, but expense for parties, as well. In such a situation, parties would be required to engage counsel and incur legal fees all over again for a fresh round of hearings."

Another aspect to be noted is that a litigant has no recourse if the top court - the final destination of cases - is not following its own directions to High Courts.

Amidst all this criticism, one must spare a thought for the overburdened judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The delayed pronouncement of verdicts is yet another fallout of the burgeoning pendency of cases and vacant posts in the higher judiciary.

While defending the necessity and length of court vacations, several judges have gone on record to say that this time is needed for writing judgments. The Supreme Court this year had a month-and-a-half long summer recess. And yet, reserved judgments continue, in the words of the Supreme Court itself, to "remain consigned to hibernation".

Coming back to the judgment reserved in the LG-MCD matter, it will be interesting to watch whether the top court will recognises its own delay in delivering the judgment and disclose reasons for the same.