Supreme Court of India
RAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHIversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 1039
- Decided
- 25 August 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- SANJAY KAROL
Holding
The Supreme Court held that High Courts must ensure the timely pronouncement of reserved judgments and directed the Registrar General to report pending judgments monthly, with the Chief Justice intervening if judgments are not delivered within three months, reaffirming the guidelines from Anil Rai v. State of Bihar.
Summary
The appellant, Ravindra Pratap Shahi, challenged the prolonged delay in pronouncing a judgment in a criminal appeal pending before the Allahabad High Court since 2008, which was heard and reserved for orders on 24 December 2021 but remained undelivered for almost a year. The Supreme Court examined whether such delay violates the right to speedy justice and whether High Courts should be compelled to adopt mechanisms to ensure timely judgment delivery. Relying on the guidelines laid down in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, the Court emphasized the need for prompt pronouncement of judgments and the role of the Chief Justice and Registrar General in monitoring pending reserved judgments. It reiterated that parties may approach the Chief Justice if a judgment is not delivered within six months and may seek reassignment of the case. Consequently, the Court issued fresh directions to all High Courts to furnish monthly lists of pending judgments for three months and to act if judgments remain undelivered beyond three months, thereby disposing of the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in pronouncing a reserved judgment infringes the litigant's right to speedy justice.
- Whether High Courts should be directed to implement procedural mechanisms for timely delivery of judgments.
- Whether parties may approach the Chief Justice of a High Court for relief when a judgment is not pronounced within six months.
- Whether the Supreme Court can issue binding directions to all High Courts regarding the handling of reserved judgments.
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to issuance of directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments. Headnotes† Judicial process – Justice delivery system – Delay in pronouncing judgments after hearings – Judicial deprecation – On facts, criminal appeal since 2008, heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but the judgment not delivered, and directed to be relisted before the Regular Bench – Propriety: Held: Extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard
Subjects
Directions to High Courts on the Reserved JudgmentsJudicial processJustice delivery systemDelay in pronouncing judgments after hearingsDeprecationAllahabad High CourtRelisted before the Regular BenchDefeating the ends of justiceAnil Rai’s caseChief Justice of the High CourtRegistrar General of each High Court
Judgment
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1525 : 2025 INSC 1039
Ravindra Pratap Shahi
v.
State of U.P. & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025)
25 August 2025
[Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to issuance of directions to High Courts on the
Reserved Judgments.
Headnotes†
Judicial process – Justice delivery system – Delay in
pronouncing judgments after hearings – Judicial deprecation –
On facts, criminal appeal pending before the Allahabad High
Court since 2008, heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021,
but the judgment not delivered, and directed to be relisted
before the Regular Bench – Propriety:
Held: Extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment not
delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was
heard – Said situation not arisen for consideration for the first time –
In most of the High Courts, no mechanism where the litigant can
approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to
its notice the delay in delivery of judgment – In such situation, the
litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of
justice – Directions already been issued by this Court in Anil Rai’s
case that if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within
a period of six months, the parties entitled to move an application
before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw
the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh
arguments, is reiterated and adherence to the principles laid down
in Anil Rai’s case required – Further, directions issued to the High
Courts on pronouncing reserved judgments – Registrar General of
each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court
list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within
the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the
same for three months – If the judgment is not delivered within
three months, Registrar General to place the matters before the
Chief Justice for orders. [Paras 7, 10, 11]
* Author
1526 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Case Law Cited
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC
318 – relied on.
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR
50 : (1984) 1 SCC 596; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v.
State of Gujarat and Ors. [2004] 3 SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158;
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [2008] 2 SCR 80 : (2008) 7 SCC
96; Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. [2017] 1
SCR 286 : (2017) 3 SCC 330; Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v.
State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2020 INSC 618 : (2021) 12 SCC
603; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and
Ors., 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; K. Madan Mohan
Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors., 2022 INSC 1025 :
[2022] 7 SCR 425 – referred to.
List of Keywords
Directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments; Judicial
process; Justice delivery system; Delay in pronouncing judgments
after hearings; Deprecation; Allahabad High Court; Relisted before
the Regular Bench; Defeating the ends of justice; Anil Rai’s case;
Chief Justice of the High Court; Registrar General of each High
Court.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
3700-3701 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 939 of 2008
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Devesh Monhan, Kush Chaturvedi,
Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Syed Faraz Alam, Atharva Gaur,
Aayushman Aggarwal.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Ashutosh Thakur, Aabhas
Parimal.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1527
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present Appeals have been preferred against the impugned
interim orders dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2008
by which the said criminal appeal preferred by respondent no.2 was
not taken up for hearing.
3. By order dated 15.04.2025, this Court requested the High Court to
decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three
months. However, considering that the criminal appeal pending before
the High Court was earlier reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but
the judgment was not delivered necessitating orders from the Chief
Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to assign the
matter to a different Bench, we heard the learned counsel for the
parties for issuance of necessary directions in this regard.
4. According to the appellant/de-facto complainant, the appeal preferred
by respondent no.2 is pending since 2008 wherein he moved the
High Court on nine different occasions for early listing, hearing and
disposal of the appeal. However, no final verdict has been given by
the High Court. Eventually, arguments were heard by the Division
Bench of the High Court at great length, and the appeal was reserved
for orders on 24.12.2021. When we heard this matter on 27.01.2025,
we directed the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad to immediately bring the issue to the notice of the Chief
Justice and also submit a report with regard to the correctness of
the averments made in these Appeals.
5. The Registrar General of the High Court submitted his report dated
29.01.2025 submitting inter alia that the appeal was heard and
reserved for orders on 24.12.2021. However, since the judgment
was not delivered within six months, in light of administrative order
of the Chief Justice dated 07.03.2019, the case was ordered to be
listed before Regular Bench (as per roster). The matter was again
placed before the Chief Justice on 19.12.2022, upon which, it was
1528 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
directed that the matter be listed as per roster on 09.01.2023. On this
date, no one appeared for the appellant. Therefore, the appeal was
adjourned for hearing on 06.02.2023 and, thereafter, on subsequent
dates, hearing did not materialise.
6. The above report of the Registrar General of the High Court supports
the averments made in these Appeals that the criminal appeal
pending before the High Court was heard and reserved for orders on
24.12.2021, but the judgment was not delivered, and it was directed
to be relisted before the Regular Bench.
7. It is extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment was not
delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard.
This Court is repeatedly confronted with similar matters wherein
proceedings are kept pending in the High Court for more than three
months, in some cases for more than six months or years wherein
judgments are not delivered after hearing the matter. In most of the
High Courts, there is no mechanism where the litigant can approach
the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the
delay in delivery of judgment. In such situation, the litigant loses his
faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice.
8. This Court in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar1 dealt with such state
of affairs prevalent in some High Courts wherein after conclusion
of arguments, judgments are not pronounced for a period spread
over years. This Court made observations and issued guidelines as
contained in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment which are quoted
herein below for reference:
“9. 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. In
a country like ours where people consider the Judges only
second to God, efforts be made to strengthen that belief of
the common man. 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. A time has come when the judiciary
1 (2001) 7 SCC 318
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1529
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
itself has to assert for preserving its stature, respect and
regards for the attainment of the rule of law. For the fault
of a few, the glorious and glittering name of the judiciary
cannot be permitted to be made ugly. 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.
10. Under the prevalent circumstances in some of the High
Courts, I feel it appropriate to provide some guidelines
regarding the pronouncement of judgments which, I am
sure, shall be followed by all concerned, being the mandate
of this Court. Such guidelines, as for the present, are as
under:
(i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue
appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case
where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced
later, a column be added in the judgment where, on
the first page, after the cause-title, date of reserving
the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately
mentioned by the Court Officer concerned.
(ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their
administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/
Readers of the various Benches in the High Courts
to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters
where the judgments reserved are not pronounced
within the period of that month.
(iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments
the judgment is not pronounced within a period of
two months, the Chief Justice concerned shall draw
the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending
matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability
of circulating the statement of such cases in which
the judgments have not been pronounced within a
period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the
arguments amongst the Judges of the High Court for
their information. Such communication be conveyed
as confidential and in a sealed cover.
1530 [2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
(iv) Where 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. Such
application, as and when filed, shall be listed before
the Bench concerned within two days excluding the
intervening holidays.
(v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced
within a period of six months, any of the parties of the
said lis shall be entitled to move an application before
the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to
withdraw the said case and to make it over to any
other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the
Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any
other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.”
9. Some High Courts have adopted practice of pronouncing the final
order without reasoned judgment, which is not delivered for substantial
length of time depriving the aggrieved party of the opportunity to
seek further judicial redressal. Deprecating such practice, this Court
in State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagdev Singh Talwandi2 issued
directions which were restated time and again on several occasions
including in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. vs. State of
Gujarat and Ors.3, Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana4 and Ajay
Singh and Anr. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr.5 and two recent
judgments in the matter of Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors.6 and Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar
and Ors. vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.7 in which one of us (Justice
Prashant Kumar Mishra) is a member and K. Madan Mohan Rao
vs. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors.8.
10. It is not that the situation with which we are dealing in these Appeals
has arisen for consideration for the first time. The directions have
2 (1984) 1 SCC 596
3 (2004) 4 SCC 158
4 (2008) 7 SCC 96
5 (2017) 3 SCC 330
6 (2021) 12 SCC 603
7 2024 INSC 801
8 2022 INSC 1025
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1531
Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors.
already been issued by this Court in Anil Rai (supra). Therefore,
what is required today is of adherence to the principles laid down
by this Court in Anil Rai (supra). We reiterate the directions and
direct the Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the
Chief Justice of the High Court a list of cases where the judgment
reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month
and keep on repeating the same for three months. If the judgment is
not delivered within three months, the Registrar General shall place
the matters before the Chief Justice for orders and the Chief Justice
shall bring it to the notice of the concerned Bench for pronouncing
the order within two weeks thereafter, failing which the matter be
assigned to another Bench.
11. The above direction is in addition to the guidelines/directions issued
by this Court in Anil Rai (supra).
12. The present Appeals stand disposed of with the above observations
and directions. Let a copy of this judgment be circulated to the
Registrar Generals of all the High Courts for compliance.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments"Sign in to search