Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud Today (April 8th) expressed worry at the practice of High Courts keeping matters reserved for judgment for unusually long periods.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, today voiced his concerns over a troubling trend observed in High Courts across the country—prolonged delays in delivering judgments on reserved matters. This issue came to light during a Supreme Court bench discussion, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, focusing on a case related to arbitration proceedings.
CJI Chandrachud highlighted a concerning practice where judges reserve matters for judgment for extended periods, exceeding ten months, without rendering a decision. He disclosed efforts to address this issue, revealing that he had written to all High Courts to draw attention to this practice.
Despite these efforts, he noted a tendency among some judges to merely re-list these prolonged cases as part-heard, essentially bypassing the problem. CJI Chandrachud expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of such a measure, pointing out that the essence and impact of oral arguments fade over time, and judges may not retain the details of the case.
“What is a matter of concern is judges reserving matters for over 10 months without judgment. I wrote to all the High Courts. After the letter, I see many judges just de-reserving matters and listing them as part-heard. Honestly ,after that long, the oral arguments do not matter and judges forget,”
-the CJI remarked.
To mitigate this issue for the case in question, the Supreme Court directed the High Court involved to dispose of the matter promptly, emphasizing the importance of reducing the delay and the subsequent impact on litigants’ legal expenses and the judicial process.
This directive from the apex court comes amidst observations of similar delays in other High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, where the Supreme Court criticized the slow pace of case hearings, particularly in bail matters. The apex court had urged the Bombay High Court judges to expedite the hearing and resolution of such cases, stressing that delays in bail matters could infringe upon an individual’s personal liberty.
“We hope this is not a trend at more High Courts of the country. We are of the view that releasing a matter at this stage after it has been heard for a substantial period compounds the delay and plight and legal fees of litigants … Liberty granted to move the learned judge under Section 36 of the Arbitration Act. Matter to be taken up at reasonable despatch, though we are aware of the High Court’s burden,”
-the apex court directed.
This recent development underscores the Supreme Court’s concern for the efficiency of the judicial process and its commitment to ensuring that justice is delivered in a timely manner, thus safeguarding the rights and interests of litigants across the country.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on CJI
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
