Supreme Court Asks High Courts Not To Delay Uploading Of Judgments After Pronouncing Operative Part

The Supreme Court warned the High Courts not to delay uploading the judgment once its operative part is pronounced. The Court reiterated that judgments should be made available to the parties within three months from the date of reserving.

“We hope that we may not have to come across any matter wherein there is a delay at the end of the High Court in uploading the reasoned order more particularly after the operative part of the judgment is pronounced.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard the matter where it noticed that there was delay of over two years in uploading of judgment by the Punjab & Haryana High Court from the date of reading out operating part of the order in a criminal appeal, where the conviction of the Appellant was affirmed but the reasoned judgment was uploaded after a gross delay of two years and five months.

The Appellant-convict approached the Supreme Court for setting aside his conviction on the ground of delay in judgment uploading by the High Court and other grounds on merits.

The Court refused to interfere with the conviction, stating that a delay in judgment uploading alone cannot nullify a conviction if the judgment is otherwise sound.

“We have reached the conclusion that despite there being a delay of 2 years 5 months in uploading the Judgment, the oral testimony of the two eyewitnesses inspires confidence and there is nothing on record in the form of any intrinsic evidence to render their testimony doubtful.”, the court said.

But, the Court expressed “grave concern,” holding that such practices undermine transparency and prejudice litigants. The Court reiterated the guidelines laid down in the case of Anil Rai v. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318 where it was held that judgments must ordinarily be delivered within three months of being reserved.

“Over a period of time, it has been the practice of few High Courts to pronounce the operative part of the order without the reasoned judgment and after a substantial length of time the reasoned judgment is uploaded. This practice has been deprecated by this Court in many of its judgments and orders. This practice of the High Courts deprives the aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further judicial redressal more particularly in criminal matters wherein the appeal is dismissed affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court.”, the court observed.

“The guidelines and observations in Anil Rai (supra), remain fundamental to the course of dispensation of justice in any case before the Court, and the principle set out therein must be followed. This Court was concerned with an issue where an order was pronounced but even after more than three months, reasons were not forthcoming, and the Judgment was not available to either of the parties.”, the Court added.

The bench referred to the recent direction in Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of UP that the Registrar must place the matter before the High Court Chief Justice if the judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving the verdict.

Reference was also made to Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors which held that reasoned judgment must be given within 2-5 days of pronouncing the operative portion.

The appeal was dismissed, with the aforesaid cautionary note for the High Courts to deliver judgments timely.

Cause Title: RAJAN VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 879

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

Ms. Tarannum Cheema, counsel for the appellant

Mr. Deepak Thukral, counsel for the State of Haryana