Signing you in

The Supreme Court on Friday issued a sweeping set of 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 three-month outer limit for pronouncement of reserved judgments.

The ruling came in proceedings arising out of prolonged delays in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts. (Supreme Court website)In a landmark move aimed at tackling judicial delays affecting personal liberty and speedy justice, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi laid down an extensive framework to institutionalise transparency, accountability and timelines in judicial functioning, holding that intervention by the apex court had become necessary “for complete justice to the parties”.

The ruling came in proceedings arising out of prolonged delays in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts, particularly in criminal appeals involving life convicts who continued to remain in custody even after hearings had concluded and judgments had been reserved for years together.

Pronouncing the judgment, CJI Kant said the guidelines would take effect immediately and directed registrar generals of all high courts to place the framework before their respective chief justices for implementation.

“The high courts shall pronounce the judgment within a maximum period of three months from the date of reserving,” directed the court, while simultaneously putting in place a cascading accountability mechanism in case the timeline is breached.

Under the directions, if a reserved judgment is not delivered within three months, the matter must automatically be placed before the chief justice of the high court within two weeks. If the judgment is still not pronounced within the following two weeks, the chief justice may reassign the case to another bench for fresh hearing.

In a major reform concerning personal liberty, the bench directed that bail applications should ordinarily be heard, decided and uploaded on the same day. If the order is reserved, it must be pronounced on the following day and uploaded immediately thereafter.

Also Read: SC grants divorce despite wife opposing plea to prove husband’s adultery first

The court further mandated that orders granting bail or suspending sentence must be communicated to jail and other authorities “as soon as pronounced”, with undertrials or convicts to be released preferably on the same day or, at the latest, the next day.

Recognising the widespread problem of delays in uploading detailed judgments even after operative orders are pronounced, the bench ruled that where urgent relief is required, courts may pronounce the operative portion first, but the reasoned judgment must be uploaded within seven days and, in exceptional situations involving practical difficulties, within a maximum of 15 days.

The court specifically identified matters concerning demolition, eviction, admissions to educational institutions and bail as categories where urgent operative directions may become necessary.

The bench also made it mandatory for all reasoned judgments pronounced in open court to be uploaded on the high court website within 24 hours.

In another significant transparency measure, the court directed that high court websites must reflect the date on which judgment was reserved immediately after conclusion of arguments. If only the operative part is delivered, the case status must specifically indicate that the detailed reasons are awaited.

Automated emails and messages are also to be generated for advocates informing them when judgments are uploaded.

To monitor pendency, the court directed that at the end of every month, automated emails containing details of all reserved judgments pending beyond the prescribed timeline must be sent to the concerned bench as well as the chief justice of the high court.

The judgment additionally encouraged circulation among judges of cases in which judgments have remained pending for more than two months.

The apex court also created enforceable remedies for litigants affected by delayed judgments. It held that if a judgment is not pronounced within three months from reserving, parties would be entitled to file an application seeking early pronouncement, which must be listed before the concerned bench within two working days excluding holidays.

Further, if the judgment remains pending even after three months plus one additional month, litigants may seek transfer of the matter to another bench for fresh hearing.

Similarly, where the operative part is pronounced but the detailed judgment is not uploaded within 15 days, parties may move an application seeking early delivery of the reasoned judgment. If the detailed judgment remains unavailable even after one month, litigants may request reassignment of the case to another bench.

The court also directed that certified copies of judgments must now mandatorily mention three separate dates -- the date on which judgment was reserved, the date on which the operative order was pronounced, and the date on which the detailed judgment was uploaded.

The judgment traces its origins to proceedings initiated earlier this year when the Supreme Court, while hearing a case from Jharkhand, noticed several criminal appeals involving life convicts where judgments had remained reserved for years after hearings concluded. Subsequently, the court called for data from all high courts and found the problem to be systemic rather than confined to one state.

In March this year, the bench had circulated draft guidelines prepared by advocate Fauzia Shakil, who was assisting the court as amicus curiae. The draft framework proposed strict timelines for reserved judgments, real-time website monitoring and special safeguards in bail matters.

At that stage, the bench had described the proposed framework as “eloquent” and “commendable”, observing that the purpose of the exercise was to “enhance accountability in our system and strengthen the judicial institution”.

During earlier hearings, the bench had also remarked that delays sometimes occurred because judges sought to deliver “the best judgment possible”, but emphasised that institutional transparency and litigants’ rights could not suffer indefinitely on that account.