The Allahabad High Court judge candidly recorded that he was “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” after hearing a matter beyond working hours due to a heavy cause list and a deadline set by the Supreme Court of India. The rare remark highlights the intense workload and mounting pressure on High Court judges amid massive case pendency.
In an unusual but honest judicial remark, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court recently recorded in his order how physically exhausting court work can be when a judge handles an extremely heavy cause list in a single day.
While hearing a petition on February 24 challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the judge chose not to dictate the judgment immediately after the hearing. Instead, he reserved the verdict and candidly recorded the reason in his order, stating,
“Since I am feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate the judgment, the judgment is reserved.”
ALSO READ: Calcutta High Court’s Landmark Late Night Hearing Halts Lawyer’s Arrest
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
The order reflects the intense workload faced by High Court judges. The Court noted that the hearing in the matter began at 4:15 pm and continued till 7:10 pm, well beyond regular working hours. The judge also explained why the case was taken up so late in the day.
In August 2025, the Supreme Court of India had requested the High Court to decide the petition expeditiously, preferably within six months. The six-month period ended on February 24, which is why the matter was taken up on priority despite an overwhelming number of cases listed that day.
Explaining the workload, the judge wrote,
“Today there were 92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh misc. applications and three matters listed in the additional/unlisted list-I, II and III. Only fresh cases upto serial number 29 could be heard today. However, keeping in view the order passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court hearing of this matter was commenced at 4.15 p.m. and it has concluded at 7.10 p.m,”
This disclosure gives a rare insight into the functioning of the High Courts, where judges often deal with hundreds of matters in a single day.
The case has a detailed procedural history. In May 2025, a co-ordinate Bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia had set aside the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal after recording the submission that the order had been passed without hearing the petitioner. At that time, the Court had remanded the matter back to the Tribunal with the direction,
“Matter is remanded to the DRT to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,”
The Bench had not examined the merits of the dispute but focused on ensuring that the petitioner was granted a fair opportunity of hearing.
However, the matter reached the Supreme Court in August 2025. The top court found that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice because no notice had been issued to the borrower before passing the earlier order. The Supreme Court then set aside the High Court’s earlier decision and revived the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
In its order, the Supreme Court observed,
“There being breach of natural justice, the order dated 26th May, 2025 cannot sustain. It stands set aside. This would result in revival of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court. The High Court is requested to decide the said petition on its own merits as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, preferably within six months,”
Following this direction, the matter came up again before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi for fresh consideration.
The incident has drawn attention not only to the legal issues involved in the DRT dispute and the application of natural justice principles, but also to the human side of the judiciary. The judge’s candid remark about being “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” highlights the pressure on courts due to massive pendency and tight timelines fixed by higher courts.
This case also reflects the importance of procedural fairness, especially in matters involving financial recovery and borrowers’ rights. As the High Court now considers the petition on merits, the final judgment is awaited.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Late-Night Hearing
