The Illusion of Disposal

On June 9, 2026, the Supreme Court expressed grave concerns over an extraordinary delay by the Allahabad High Court in disposing of a Criminal Appeal. The appeal, filed by a murder accused against his conviction, remained pending for 40 years until the Supreme Court finally put a quietus to it in its June 9 order. The Supreme Court also asked what innovative measures could be adopted to address the mounting pendency in the Allahabad High Court.

While the concern is justified, pendency before the Allahabad High Court, or any other High Court for that matter, is not merely a product of a docket explosion. It is also a problem of the way the life cycle of a matter moves from the day it is first listed to the day it ultimately gets taken up for a substantive hearing.

On a usual day, the criminal roster of a particular courtroom in the Allahabad High Court carries about 800 matters. On certain days, fresh criminal filings themselves may cross 400 matters. These matters include criminal writs, bail applications, and quashing petitions, among others.

When fresh matters are not taken up due to a paucity of time, they get classified as leftover matters. These leftover matters then get priority in listing over newly filed fresh matters when they come up in the subsequent week. The list of fresh cases for the next week, thus, begins with the burden of the previous week. This essentially means that a particular matter, even if newly filed, may not come up for hearing for several weeks until the leftover cases above it are taken up for hearing.

Assuming that a fresh matter gets taken up, and any order is passed in the said matter, it then moves to the regular cause list. Once a matter enters the regular list, it serially enters a territory on the cause list that the Court will not reach in its usual working hours. The only hope for a matter now, to be taken up, is if it is mentioned out-of-turn and a grave urgency to take the matter up is highlighted.  Even then, it is not certain that the matter will actually be taken up. The list of matters that are mentioned out-of-turn is also long. The time earmarked by the Court for taking up such matters is further limited.

This movement of a case from the list of fresh cases to the regular cause list by itself ends up disproportionately impacting one party more than another. For instance, in a petition seeking quashing of an FIR, if an interim order is passed by the Court staying further investigation until the next date of listing, he will have little incentive to seek final disposal of the said case. The status quo will benefit him, perhaps at the cost of the complainant, who may want a fair and speedy investigation into the same FIR.

Conversely, the Court may hear the matter on an occasion and decide not to pass any interim orders protecting the accused on that date. This may be due to a variety of reasons. For instance, the Court may call for pleadings. The file may not be available. A proper party may have to be impleaded. Counsel may have an illness slip on record. The matter may be adjourned. The Court may not sit. There may be a strike. Whatever be the reason, the listing systems currently in place will treat the said matter as a non-fresh matter unless otherwise ordered. As a result, the matter will be sent to the regular cause list, thus invisibilizing it, and sealing its fate at the status quo.

The Allahabad High Court has attempted to address this problem by creating an “oldest pending” category. Under this system, cases that were filed and listed before 2014, and which have suffered a fate as mentioned above, are taken up on priority at a specific time slot every day. While this system acknowledges the limits and lacunae of ordinary listing and creates an extra-ordinary category, it remains far from adequate and leaves much to be desired. In several such “old” matters, the Court has recorded that the counsels have passed away. Even where counsel is available, the client(s) have lost touch with the counsel. Where both counsel and client are available, the party enjoying interim protection still seeks adjournments. A special slot, as such, then becomes another exercise in futility.

The larger solution is clear. The judge-to-case ratio must improve. More judges are needed. No serious discussion on pendency can ignore this aspect. However, at the same time, the present system also needs immediate guardrails. These guardrails should be established with a view to ensure that the judicial process does not end up perpetuating the inequalities that it seeks to redress, especially in matters where personal liberty is involved.

First, personal liberty matters should be placed on a stricter timeline. The High Court may consider a rule that matters where no interim protection has been granted must be decided within one year from the date of filing. This is also necessary in order to ensure that the right to appeal remains live and effective. A remedy that cannot be reached in time is not an effective remedy. Where a proceeding concerns liberty, the process must be read in a manner that protects liberty. That is the necessary extension of beneficial construction.

Second, if the Court does not pass a substantive order protecting an accused or refusing to protect them on merits on the first day, the accused person’s liberty cannot be left to the weight of the regular cause list. After pleadings are exchanged, the matter must be decided on merits, notwithstanding any requests for adjournments or the like.

Third, the oldest pending category must be made disposal-oriented. Routine adjournments should not be permitted. The Court should also devise a mechanism for advance scrutiny that escalates the matter to the administrative side of the Chief Justice if the matter is not being heard despite being taken up.

Lastly, before an old matter in the above category is listed, the Registry should ascertain whether counsel is available, whether the client is traceable, and whether the cause of action still survives. If counsel has passed away, legal services should provide another counsel. If the cause of action no longer survives for any other reason, the matter should be deleted or disposed of with reasons. This will ensure that old matters are not listed only to be adjourned again. It will also save court time for cases that can actually be decided.

The Supreme Court’s concern should therefore lead to a sharper institutional response not only from the Allahabad High Court but also from other High Courts as well. The focus needs to shift from listing cases to moving them to a position of actual hearing. The Supreme Court’s June 9 order is a welcome step to introspect institutional postures of the High Court that work with the objective of discharging their boards for the day. A matter may leave the fresh board because an order has been passed. However, if it then disappears into the regular list, the system has recorded progress without delivering justice. For an effective delivery of justice, the listing of a matter on priority is only the first step. Court processes need to ensure that the matter remains capable of being heard, decided, and appealed within a reasonable time frame.

Tanishk Goyal is an advocate practicing before the Allahabad High Court.