NEW DELHI: Strongly disapproving of some high court judges not delivering verdicts for months after completion of hearings, the Supreme Court on Tuesday said the practice must end.
While hearing a petition filed by four convicts aggrieved by inordinate delay on the part of the Jharkhand High Court in delivering verdict in their appeals for over three years, a Bench led by CJI Surya Kant said broadly there were two kinds of high court judges.
“One is a hard working judge who will hear everybody and reserve (verdicts) in 10-15 matters even. There are some judges who after this don’t deliver the judgments. We are not on anyone individually. This is a challenge before the judiciary and this is an identifiable ailment. It has to be treated and eradicated and it cannot be allowed to spread,” CJI Kant said.
The Bench, which also included Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, said a complete judgment has to be provided to the counsel by the end of next week.
Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi, representing the litigant, said, “It seems some kind of lip service is going on… Some message has to go. This amounts to playing with the majesty of law.”
Referring to another prevalent trend in some cases arguments are heard and are again posted for further directions, the CJI said he will raise this issue in his upcoming meeting with chief justices of high courts and will try to find a solution so that such avoidable litigation ends.
“In my 15 years as a high court judge, I never ever reserved a judgment and did not deliver judgment within three months,” the CJI said.
“The Jharkhand High Court pronounced the judgment on December 4, 2025, where the writ petition was dismissed. The judgment has not been uploaded yet. We have impressed upon the counsel appearing for the high court that there is no rhyme or reason for such delay. Let a complete judgment be provided to the counsel by the end of next week,” it said, posting the matter for further hearing in the week commencing on February 16.
In November 2025, the top court directed all high courts to submit detailed reports on timelines for reserved judgments, including dates of reservation, pronouncement and uploading. Since, then, it has been monitoring compliance of its directions mandating that all certified copies of judgments clearly record these three dates.