Unable to find any reason on the order sheet, the Delhi High Court has sought reports from a Judicial Magistrate First Class, the CJM and the District Judge on the delay in pronouncing order on an application argued in January 2026 and awaiting a ruling since April 22, and has asked them to explain a remark about working with one stenographer and over 4,500 pending cases.
New Delhi: More than six months after arguments were heard on an application for vacation of an interim stay, no order has been pronounced, and the Delhi High Court has directed its Registry to call for a report from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Mahila Court), North District, on why [Pradeep Bansal & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr.].
A Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora passed the order on November 6, 2026, and also sought reports from the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate and the District Judge.
Reports from the magistrate, CJM and District Judge
The Registry was directed to seek a report from the concerned judge, the CJM and the District Judge on the reasons for non-pronouncement of the order, to be sent two days before the next date of hearing.
The Court also asked the CJM and the District Judge to explain a remark recorded on the trial court’s order sheet and repeated in later orders of the same judge. The order directs:
“The learned CJM and the learned District Judge, in their report, will also explain the context of the remark ‘This Court is working with only one stenographer and having pendency of more than 4500 cases’ as it appears on the order sheet of the learned Trial Court and similar, such remarks appearing in the further orders of the concerned judge.”
A copy of the order is to be sent by special messenger to the District Judge, the CJM and the concerned judge. The matter is listed on December 3, 2026 in the supplementary list.
What the order sheet shows
Justice Arora went through the trial court’s order sheets, in particular from July 22, 2025, when the present presiding officer took charge, and found nothing explaining why the order had not been pronounced. The Court recorded:
“This Court is unable to discern from the order sheet, the reason for the non-pronouncement of the order.”
The petition
The petitioners had come to the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, asking for expeditious and time-bound disposal of their application dated April 8, 2024, which seeks vacation of an interim stay granted on December 1, 2023 in a complaint case pending before the Mahila Court-02, North District.
Their counsel told the Court that arguments on the application were heard on January 6, 2026, and that the matter has remained pending for pronouncement of the order since April 22, 2026. The Court issued notice, which was accepted by the Additional Standing Counsel (Criminal) for the State.
Why the order matters
A ruling that waits months after arguments leaves litigants in limbo, and here an interim stay has continued in the meantime. By calling for reports from the magistrate as well as the CJM and the District Judge, the High Court is using its supervisory power under Article 227 to find out whether the delay reflects individual lapse or the staffing and pendency strain the magistrate’s own remark describes. The reports due before December 3 could shed light on both.
Case Title: Pradeep Bansal & Ors. v. State NCT of Delhi and Anr., W.P.(CRL) 3516/2026
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: November 6, 2026
Next Date: December 3, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Nitesh Mehra, Kunal Raj, Hitaakshi Mehra and Riya Jain for the petitioners; Advocate Sangeet Sibou for Rahul Tyagi, ASC (Crl.), for the State
