Grave concern: Supreme Court flags delay by High Courts in uploading judgments

The Supreme Court recently flagged the growing practice of High Courts pronouncing operative parts of its verdicts but uploading detailed judgment on its website months or even years later [Rajan v. State of Haryana].

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta said this practice was a matter of grave concern, and such delays deprive litigants of their right to seek timely judicial redress.

The Court added that it hoped no future case would involve delays by High Courts in uploading reasoned orders, especially after the operative part of a judgment has been pronounced.

It emphasised that, at present, the Bench was only reiterating the directions already laid down in Anil Rai vs State of Bihar.

"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. 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. Today all that we are doing is reiterating the directions issued by this Court in Anil Rai (supra)," Court said.

The apex court was hearing a plea challenging a Punjab & Haryana High Court order that upheld the conviction of an accused in a 1998 murder case.

According to First Information Report (FIR) lodged by an injured eyewitness, the appellant Rajan attempted to fire at the victim with a pistol but missed.

However, two co-accused, Naresh and Vikas, shot him with double-barrel guns, causing fatal injuries. Another accused was armed with a sword.

The trial court convicted Rajan and Vikas while acquitting three others. Naresh, who had absconded, was later arrested, tried separately and convicted.

Aggrieved by the order, Rajan challenged it before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, the High Court dismissed his appeal and affirmed his conviction, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Rajan argued that a delay of two years and five months in uploading the High Court’s reasoned judgment caused grave prejudice, and that no firearm was recovered from him.

The Court rejected these submissions, holding that non-recovery of the weapon was not fatal when supported by consistent eyewitness testimony.

On the issue of delay, the Court expressed serious concern over High Courts pronouncing operative parts of judgments but uploading detailed orders much later.

"The delay at the instance of the High Court in uploading the Judgment after a period of about 2 years 5 months is a matter of grave concern. We should not overlook this fact. We have taken serious cognizance of this delay at the instance of the High Court," Court said.

Reiterating the guidelines laid down in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001), it clarified that delay alone cannot be a ground to set aside a conviction unless prejudice is shown.

"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 noted.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed circulation of its judgment to all High Courts.

[Read Judgment]