Repeated & Unreasonable Delays In Time-Bound Trials Shall Be Viewed Seriously: Orissa High Court Issues SOP For Judicial Officers
The Orissa High Court has formulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed by all the Judicial Officers across the State in case of seeking extension of time to conclude trials where specific time limits are imposed either by the High Court or the Supreme Court. The SOP came into existence in the wake of recent direction of the Supreme Court in Durgawati @ Priya v....
The Orissa High Court has formulated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to be followed by all the Judicial Officers across the State in case of seeking extension of time to conclude trials where specific time limits are imposed either by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
The SOP came into existence in the wake of recent direction of the Supreme Court in Durgawati @ Priya v. CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 656 wherein dissatisfaction was expressed over Judicial Officers writing directly to the Registry of the Supreme Court seeking extension of time where trial is ordered to be expedited or concluded within a specified time period.
The Bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar had disapproved of such practice and had observed –
“It has been our persistent experience that in cases where this Court has issued directions for the expeditious conclusions of trials, the concerned judges have been corresponding with the Registry of this Court and subsequently, those letters are placed before the Court for orders. We deem such practice to be wholly unacceptable.”
It had also asked all the High Courts to formulate SOP to regulate the manner in which the Judicial Officers shall communicate with the Supreme Court Registry in case of requesting extension of time in time-bound trials.
As per the SOP every request for extension of time in a trial/suit/other judicial proceeding shall be routed through the proper channel as specified hereunder –
(1) in case of request for extension of time from Hon'ble High Court-
i. The concerned Presiding Officer (except District & Sessions Judge and Judge, Family Court) shall send the request for extension of time through the concerned District Judge to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, through both modes i.e. official e-mail and regular mode.
ii. The District & Sessions Judge and Judge, Family Court shall, regarding the matter pending before them, send the request for extension of time to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court through official e-mail and regular mode.
(2) in case of request for extension of time from the Supreme Court
i. The concerned Presiding Officer (except District & Sessions Judge and Judge, Family Court) shall, via official e-mail and regular mode, send the requ.est through the concerned District Judge to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, who shall then forward the same to the Officer/Registrar concerned in the Registry of the Supreme Court.
ii. The District & Sessions Judge and Judge, Family Court shall, regarding the matter pending before them, send the request for extension of time, via official e-mail and regular mode, to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court, who shall then forward the same to the Officer/Registrar concerned in the Registry of the Supreme Court.
A specific format has been circulated along with the SOP to seek extension of time. Pertinently, the concerned Judicial Officer is also required to mention exceptional or unavoidable circumstances, if any, affecting the progress of the case or matter after the date of order of the superior Court by which a specific time limit has been fixed and specific period of extension prayed for.
The District Judge concerned/Registrar (Judicial) are also ordered to monitor compliance with time-bound orders and may periodically review the status of pending cases or matters, where extensions have been sought or granted.
“The Judicial Officers shall, in no case, send a request for extension of time directly to the Registry of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or the High Court without routing them through proper channel as mentioned above...Repeated or unreasonable delays without proper cause may be viewed seriously and subject to administrative scrutiny, if ordered,” it also clarified.