GHCAA writes to Guj HC CJ R Subhash Reddy pointing out delay in pronouncement of judgments

A letter has been addressed to Gujarat High Court Chief Justice R Subhash Reddy, on behalf of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA), drawing attention to several complaints received regarding the delay in pronouncing judgments/orders.

The complaints in question are concerned with a pattern observed where some judges of the High Court in several cases conclude the hearing of cases but do not pronounce judgment/order for a very long time.

The letter points out that in effect, the directions of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai v State of Bihar are also flouted. In that case, the Supreme Court had held that a judgment once reserved, must be pronounced within one month. It was also directed that the Court Officer of every judge of the High Court must furnish monthly reports to the Chief Justice on the number of cases where judgments were reserved but not pronounced.

In the letter, President of the GHAA Asim Pandya notes that “a novel method” has been developed by some judges of the Court to circumvent these directions, whereby cases are kept for dictation of order/judgment without formally reserving it or keeping it CAV (Curia advisari vult or under the Court’s consideration). The letter goes on to detail,

“The cases are thereafter listed on board for dictation order/judgment at regular interval skirting the requirement of reporting to the Chief Justice about the number of cases where Judgments/orders were reserved.”

Objecting to such deplorable practices, the letter indicates that the same is aimed at achieving indirectly what is not permitted directly. Calling out to increasing tendency of judges to adopt such practices, the letter argues,

“…unless this tendency is checked at the earliest, it would seriously prejudice the right to speedy justice available to every person in our country under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Under sheer compulsion I am undertaking the unpleasant task of bringing this unfortunate state of affairs to your notice and discharging my duty as the President of the Bar.”

The letter also acknowledges that the Court is burdened with heavy workload, but the same is not answer to not following or avoiding the mandatory directions/guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Further, even though there may be rare cases which are highly contentious, with case papers running into more than thousand pages,

“…the instances are galore where cases not involving voluminous record are delayed and judgments are not pronounced for long. This causes not only considerable hardships to litigants but it also results into miscarriage of justice.”

An additional ground for evading the speedy pronouncement of judgments/orders appears to be a change of roster. The letter makes note of this as well.

“Instances have come to my notice that after the change of the roster several cases heard fully are released by judges concerned under the pretext that they cannot do anything once the roster is changed.”

Given that such practices result in great wastage of judicial time, energy and efforts of all concerned engaged in dispensation of justice, Pandya has appealed on behalf of the GHAA that the letter be circulated to all the judges of the Court, and has requested that the directions/guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Anil Rai’s case be followed.

Read Letter: