The Supreme Court on Friday issued a comprehensive set of directions binding on all high courts across the country, mandating that bail applications be decided on the same day, or at the latest, within 24 hours of the hearing, setting an outer limit of three months for pronouncement of reserved judgements.
In a historic move aimed at tackling judicial delays affecting personal liberty and speedy justice, a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalia Bagchi laid out an expanded framework to institutionalize transparency, accountability and timelines in judicial functioning, arguing that the Supreme Court’s intervention has become necessary “to do complete justice to the parties”.
This ruling came in proceedings arising from prolonged delays in the pronouncement of judgments by several high courts, particularly in criminal appeals relating to life-sentenced convicts who continued to remain in detention even after the conclusion of the hearings and the preservation of the judgments for years together.
Delivering the judgement, CJI Kant said the guidelines would come into effect immediately and directed the general registrars of all high courts to place the framework before the Chief Justices concerned for implementation.
The court directed that “higher courts must pronounce the ruling within a maximum period of three months from the date of reservation,” while establishing a successive accountability mechanism in the event of a violation of the timetable.
Under the guidelines, if a reserved judgment is not given within three months, the matter must automatically come before the Chief Justice within two weeks. If the ruling is not pronounced within the following two weeks, the President of the Court may re-refer the case to another body for a new hearing.
In a major reform related to personal liberty, the bench directed that bail applications must be heard, decided and uploaded on the same day. If the order is reserved, it must be spoken the next day and uploaded immediately afterward.
Read also: The Supreme Court grants the divorce despite the wife’s opposition to the request to prove the husband’s adultery first
The court also stipulated that orders granting bail or suspending the sentence must be sent to the prison and other authorities “as soon as they are pronounced,” and that it is preferable to release the accused or convicts on the same day, or the next day at the latest.
Recognizing the widespread problem of delay in uploading detailed judgments even after pronouncement of executive orders, the bench ruled that when urgent relief is needed, courts may pronounce the operative part first, but must upload the reasoned judgment within seven days and, in exceptional cases involving practical difficulties, within a maximum of 15 days.
The Court specifically identified matters relating to demolition, eviction, admission to educational institutions and sponsorship as categories where urgent executive directions may become necessary.
The court also imposed an obligation to upload all justified rulings issued in open court to the Supreme Court’s website within 24 hours.
In another important transparency measure, the court ordered that the Supreme Court’s websites reflect the date on which the judgment was reserved immediately after the conclusion of arguments. If only the surgical portion is delivered, the case status should specifically indicate waiting for detailed reasons.
Emails and automated messages will also be generated for advocates to inform them when judgments are uploaded.
To monitor pendency, the court ordered that at the end of every month, automated emails containing details of all reserved judgments pending beyond the specified schedule shall be sent to the court concerned as well as the Chief Justice.
In addition, the ruling encouraged the circulation of cases in which rulings had been pending for more than two months between judges.
The Supreme Court also created enforceable remedies for litigants aggrieved by delayed rulings. It held that if the judgment is not pronounced within three months of the reservation, the parties have the right to submit an application for early pronouncement, which must be listed before the relevant court within two working days excluding holidays.
Furthermore, if the judgment remains pending even after three months plus an additional month, litigants may request that the matter be transferred to another body for a new hearing.
Likewise, where the executive part has been pronounced but the detailed judgment has not been uploaded within 15 days, the parties may apply for early delivery of the reasoned judgment. If a detailed ruling remains unavailable even after a month, the parties may request that the case be re-referred to another chamber.
The court also ordered that certified copies of judgments must now mandatorily state three separate dates – the date on which the judgment was reserved, the date the executive order was pronounced, and the date on which the detailed judgment was uploaded.
The origins of the ruling go back to proceedings that began earlier this year when the Supreme Court, while hearing a case from Jharkhand, noticed several criminal appeals involving life convicts where the verdicts remained reserved for years after the hearings were over. The court then requested data from all high courts and found that the problem was systemic and not limited to one country.
In March this year, the bench circulated draft guidelines prepared by advocate Fauzia Shakeel, who was assisting the court as amicus curiae. The draft framework proposed strict timelines for reserved sentences, real-time website monitoring, and special safeguards in bail matters.
At that point, the bench described the proposed framework as “eloquent” and “commendable,” noting that the purpose of this process was to “enhance accountability in our system and strengthen the judicial institution.”
During previous hearings, the bench also noted that delays sometimes occurred because judges sought to issue “the best possible ruling,” but stressed that institutional transparency and the rights of litigants could not be affected indefinitely for this reason.
