<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s instructions to high courts to fast-track judgments and bail decisions are welcome, given the immense scale of pendency. Invoking the Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued directions to the high courts: verdicts must be pronounced in all cases within three months of reserving the order. There have been multiple instances where judges, after concluding the hearing, failed to pronounce judgments for months and even years. Sometimes, the operative part of the judgment is pronounced, but the detailed reasoning is delayed. In both cases, the Court has established timelines and recourse to relief when the deadlines are not met. Its directions arose from a petition filed by four life convicts – decisions on their criminal appeals were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court in 2022, but were pronounced only three years later, in 2025.</p>.SC issues binding guidelines to HCs for timely delivery of reserved judgments.<p class="bodytext">Central to the new guidelines is the Court’s statement that delay in pronouncing judgments is not just an administrative failure but a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty. This principle also guided the Court in mandating that bail applications should be decided on the same day or, at the latest, within 24 hours of hearing. Denial and delay of bail have caused thousands of people to languish in India’s jails. Apart from setting the timelines, the Court ordered that decisions regarding the granting of bail, suspension of sentences or acquittal of convicts should be conveyed to the prison authorities on the same day, so that the beneficiary of the ruling can be released during the day.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is upon the Supreme Court to ensure that the timelines are adhered to. While it has prescribed some relief measures in case of non-compliance, it must closely monitor the implementation of the guidelines. Notably, the guidelines the Court issued in <span class="italic">Anil Rai v. State of Bihar</span> (2001) on the same issue were not implemented. The Court should now extend its directives to the district courts, where the outcomes affect more people, while also initiating corrective measures to fix the delays in its own systems. On the day the apex court set the three-month timeline to be followed by the high courts, Justice Manoj Misra of the Court pronounced the verdict on a criminal appeal in a 42-year-old case, 15 months after reserving the judgment. These protracted proceedings call for urgent introspection because quick and efficient delivery of justice is integral to the public’s confidence in the judiciary.</p>
<p class="bodytext">The Supreme Court’s instructions to high courts to fast-track judgments and bail decisions are welcome, given the immense scale of pendency. Invoking the Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued directions to the high courts: verdicts must be pronounced in all cases within three months of reserving the order. There have been multiple instances where judges, after concluding the hearing, failed to pronounce judgments for months and even years. Sometimes, the operative part of the judgment is pronounced, but the detailed reasoning is delayed. In both cases, the Court has established timelines and recourse to relief when the deadlines are not met. Its directions arose from a petition filed by four life convicts – decisions on their criminal appeals were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court in 2022, but were pronounced only three years later, in 2025.</p>.SC issues binding guidelines to HCs for timely delivery of reserved judgments.<p class="bodytext">Central to the new guidelines is the Court’s statement that delay in pronouncing judgments is not just an administrative failure but a violation of the fundamental right to personal liberty. This principle also guided the Court in mandating that bail applications should be decided on the same day or, at the latest, within 24 hours of hearing. Denial and delay of bail have caused thousands of people to languish in India’s jails. Apart from setting the timelines, the Court ordered that decisions regarding the granting of bail, suspension of sentences or acquittal of convicts should be conveyed to the prison authorities on the same day, so that the beneficiary of the ruling can be released during the day.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is upon the Supreme Court to ensure that the timelines are adhered to. While it has prescribed some relief measures in case of non-compliance, it must closely monitor the implementation of the guidelines. Notably, the guidelines the Court issued in <span class="italic">Anil Rai v. State of Bihar</span> (2001) on the same issue were not implemented. The Court should now extend its directives to the district courts, where the outcomes affect more people, while also initiating corrective measures to fix the delays in its own systems. On the day the apex court set the three-month timeline to be followed by the high courts, Justice Manoj Misra of the Court pronounced the verdict on a criminal appeal in a 42-year-old case, 15 months after reserving the judgment. These protracted proceedings call for urgent introspection because quick and efficient delivery of justice is integral to the public’s confidence in the judiciary.</p>
