The Supreme Court declined a plea for an early hearing of a case pending before the Allahabad High Court, stressing it cannot set strict timelines for already overburdened judges. The CJI cited an order noting a judge worked till 7:10 PM, exhausted and hungry.
The Supreme Court declined to hear a plea seeking an expeditious hearing of a matter pending before the Allahabad High Court, noting that the apex court cannot impose strict timelines on High Court judges without accounting for their already heavy workload.
A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, made the observations while considering a special leave petition seeking an early decision in a case pending since 2021.
During the proceedings, the CJI referred to a recent order by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.
The order recorded that after hearing cases up to 7:10 PM, the judge was hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to continue dictating the judgment.
Quoting the CJI,
“As one of the judges wrote, and maybe rightly so, he said the Supreme Court had directed that the case be decided. It was around 6:50 or 7:10 in the evening. He specifically mentioned the time and observed that he had even missed lunch and was completely tired and exhausted. He said he would not be able to take up the case further. These observations in a judicial order require introspection on our part as well,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench also noted that the judge had mentioned having over 200 fresh matters pending before him on the same day.
CJI further observed that the Supreme Court routinely receives multiple petitions daily requesting directions for faster listing and disposal by the Allahabad High Court.
He cautioned that such directions could set a harmful precedent, effectively amounting to the Supreme Court taking control over High Court rosters.
The Bench observed,
“Every day we get four to five such petitions, and out of them, three usually pertain to the Allahabad High Court. It will create a very bad precedent if, while sitting here, we virtually begin exercising de facto control over the High Court roster,”
The Court acknowledged the significant pressure on the Allahabad High Court even though it has more than 100 judges, and said that the Chief Justice there is likely doing his best to manage the institution.
ALSO READ: High Courts Reluctant on Ad-Hoc Judge Appointments Despite 18 Lakh Pending Criminal Cases
The Bench also highlighted that prioritising a single case on Supreme Court directions could lead to older matters being pushed aside particularly affecting litigants who may not be in a position to approach the apex court.
The CJI said,
“People naturally want their matters to be decided, but these are serious systemic challenges. If we direct the High Court to take up one matter urgently, it may happen at the cost of another older case involving a poor litigant who could not approach this Court,”
In the end, the Supreme Court did not entertain the petition, but granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the High Court and seek an out-of-turn hearing.