Supreme Court directs High Courts to record dates of reserving, pronouncing and uploading judgments in certified copies

The Supreme Court recently directed all High Courts to clearly record three crucial dates in every certified copy of a judgment - the date on which the case was reserved for verdict, the date of pronouncement of judgment and the date of uploading of the judgment on the High Court website [Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.].

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and NK Singh said the practice was necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in the judicial process, particularly since litigants have been complaining about judgments not being delivered or uploaded long after hearings had concluded.

“All the High Courts are directed to suitably modify their existing practice or formats to ensure that (i) the date when the judgment is reserved; (ii) the date when the judgment is pronounced; and (iii) the date when the judgment is uploaded on the website are clearly mentioned in the uploaded/certified copy of judgment," it ordered.

The Court was hearing writ petitions where parties had alleged that their cases, along with several others, had remained undecided for years despite completion of arguments.

In response, the Supreme Court had earlier called for detailed data from all High Courts regarding pending judgments, dates of reservation, pronouncement and uploading.

Amicus curiae Fauzia Shakil placed before the Court a compilation based on the reports received so far. She pointed out that complete reports from the High Courts of Kerala and Patna were still awaited, and that eleven High Courts had not disclosed the dates when judgments were reserved, though they had furnished dates of pronouncement and uploading.

The Court noted that the reports were submitted in different formats, making collation and analysis difficult.

Therefore, it permitted the amicus to take the assistance of two junior lawyers to be formally appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

The bench also asked the amicus to design a uniform format to be adopted by all High Courts and said that if further information is required, directions would be issued afresh.

The Court further noted that in some cases, judges only pronounce the operative portion of a judgment, with reasons to follow later. In such situations, it directed High Courts to also specify whether only the operative part had been delivered or the full judgment was read out.

Referring to its earlier ruling in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat (2024), the bench reiterated that reasons must ordinarily be uploaded within five days of the operative order being pronounced.

“The High Courts, therefore, are bound to follow the said dictum unless, on account of some practical difficulties… this Court deems it appropriate to revise the timeline from five days to ten or fifteen days (maximum),” the bench said.

The matter will be taken up next on November 10 for monitoring compliance.

[Read Order]