Supreme Court seeks reports from all High Courts on timelines for delivering judgments

The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked all High Courts to submit reports on the timelines of their judgments, including the dates when cases were reserved for verdict, when judgments were pronounced and when they were uploaded on to their respective websites [Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.]. 

A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi said that the details must eventually be placed in the public domain to promote transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

The direction came as the Court continued to monitor compliance with its earlier order wherein it had directed all High Courts to clearly record three key dates in every certified copy of their judgments - the date of reservation, the date of pronouncement and the date of uploading on the court website.

The Court was informed by Amicus Curiae Advocate Fauzia Shakil that reports from ten High Courts - Karnataka, Orissa, Jharkhand, Manipur, Tripura, Himachal Pradesh, Bombay, and Calcutta had been received earlier, while those from Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttarakhand have since been filed but were yet to be collated.

Justice Kant took note of the progress and said the initiative was yielding positive results.

He observed that while a uniform format for collecting data was being developed, the system should eventually provide a comprehensive picture of each High Court’s performance.

“After inviting suggestions from all High Courts, see if you want to make changes to the format. It should be very simple, reflect uniformity, and be worth displaying on the website. It should not be litigant-oriented. I must be able to find out, of the entire High Court, all judges, how many judgments are reserved, how many pronounced, and how many days they took to be uploaded,” Justice Kant said.

He added that the data should be accessible to the public and serve as a tool of institutional transparency.

“This information for every High Court must be available in public domain. Most importantly, how many days it took in uploading the judgments,” he emphasised.

During the hearing, the Amicus suggested creating a digital dashboard displaying the number of reserved and delivered judgments across all High Courts. Justice Bagchi welcomed the idea.

“That will show the transparency and accountability of the judiciary to the people,” Justice Bagchi remarked.

The Court recorded that while several High Courts had responded, Allahabad, Guwahati, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Patna and Telangana had neither filed their reports nor sought more time. The Bench directed the Registrars General of these High Courts to comply or appear before it on the next date of hearing.

In its order, the Court outlined a detailed compliance roadmap. Each High Court has been asked to submit:

1. The existing mechanism by which it brings into public domain the dates of reservation, pronouncement, and uploading of judgments;

2. The details of all judgments reserved after January 31, 2025, including their dates of pronouncement and uploading up to October 31, 2025; and

3. Suggestions for standardising the format and improving disclosure practices.

The Court made it clear that this exercise should be completed in four weeks.

“Since it may not be advisable for this Court to undertake continuous monitoring, we direct all High Courts to submit the existing mechanism evolved by them to bring into public domain the date when a judgment is reserved, the date of its pronouncement and the date when it is uploaded on the website,” the Bench ordered.

The Court added that High Courts must also explain any practical difficulties or adverse consequences they foresee in adopting a uniform disclosure system.

Today's hearing marked a continuation of the Court’s sustained effort to ensure timely delivery and publication of judgments. The issue had first come up when several convicts approached the Supreme Court alleging that their criminal appeals remained undecided for months or years even after being heard.

That prompted the Court to seek detailed reports from all High Courts earlier this year. The Court had then observed that judgments must be uploaded promptly and that reasons must ordinarily follow operative orders within days.

Justice Kant said today that the long-term goal was to develop a transparent and consistent system across all High Courts that would help track judicial performance and reduce uncertainty for litigants.

“In the matter of reserving or pronouncing judgments, it should not be litigant-oriented. It should show the overall picture,” he said.

The matter will be taken up again after four weeks.