A court order issued by the Allahabad High Court has drawn attention to his astonishing candor. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, after hearing a matter that lasted nearly three hours after regular court hours to respect the six-month deadline set by the Supreme Court, recorded that he was so “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” that he could not dictate the judgement, and his orders were reserved.
The unusual development came in the petition filed by Chandralekha Singh against the regional office of Canara Bank. The matter was listed before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi under the category of ‘expedited matters of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’.
The judge, on February 24, recorded that while reconsidering the matter on August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India had asked the apex court to decide the petition “as soon as possible, preferably within six months” – a period that ended on the same day the matter was taken up.
Elaborating on the daily workload, Justice Vidyarthi noted that the bench had before it 92 new matters, 101 regular matters, 39 new miscellaneous applications and three additional unlisted matters. Only new cases up to serial number 29 can be heard during regular hours.
However, taking into account the Supreme Court’s timetable, the judge began hearing the case at 4:15 p.m. – well beyond normal hours, and concluded arguments at 7:10 p.m.
Then the matter took an unusual turn. The judge recorded: “As I am hungry, tired and physically unable to dictate judgement, the judgment is reserved.”
On May 26, 2025, Justice Pankaj Bhatia, Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, set aside the September 2, 2024 order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner claimed that the DRT order was passed without granting a hearing. The Supreme Court order noted that in similar matters, the court had found prima facie misconduct by an RRS officer and had even directed the CBI to proceed with related cases involving suspicious orders that did not inspire confidence.
Accepting the grievance of non-hearing, Justice Bhatia set aside the order of the DRT and remanded the matter to the court with directions to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing. He also asked the DRT to endeavor to decide the matter expeditiously.
The borrower appealed the remand order issued by the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court. In August 2025, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta set aside the Supreme Court’s May 26 order. The Supreme Court observed that the impugned DRT order had already been passed without notice to the borrower, which constituted a violation of natural justice.
It held that the remand order issued by the Supreme Court could not be supported in the manner in which it was issued. As a result, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was revived before the Supreme Court.
The apex court asked the apex court to decide the petition on merits “as soon as possible, preferably within six months, as appropriate”. It also set deadlines for submitting statements to speed up the hearing.
This six-month period ended on February 24, leading to an after-hours hearing before Justice Vidyarthi.
While courts sit for hours to complete expedited hearings, particularly in matters expedited by the Supreme Court, it is not uncommon for the order to explicitly mention hunger and fatigue as reasons for reserving judgment.
