The Supreme Court was surprised to come across a case where a Allahabad High Court Bench reserved its verdict for fourteen months before it decided to list the matter before another Bench, instead of delivering a judgment. A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta granted the litigant interim relief before sending the case back to the High Court with a directive to decide on the same promptly.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, on Monday, December 2, addressed a peculiar case involving the Allahabad High Court, where a judgment reserved for over fourteen months was eventually listed before another bench instead of being delivered. The unusual delay prompted the apex court to intervene, granting interim relief to the petitioner and issuing directives for expedited proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta highlighted the gravity of the delay while handling the case.
“We do not know the exact reason as to why the learned Judge of the High Court, despite lapse of 14 (fourteen) months since judgment was reserved, could not deliver the judgment and dispose of the petition one way or the other … Be that as it may, without expressing any further comment on the matter of keeping a reserved judgment pending for 14 (fourteen) months and then not delivering the same, we request the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months,”
-the Supreme Court directed.
The petitioner, Ramdular Singh, approached the Allahabad High Court seeking relief in a dispute that he contended was civil in nature but had escalated to criminal proceedings. The High Court reserved its decision in the matter on March 28, 2023. However, no interim relief was granted to Singh during this period.
Subsequently, on May 27, 2024—fourteen months after the judgment was initially reserved—the High Court referred the matter to another bench without delivering a verdict. This decision left Singh aggrieved, prompting him to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.
Singh’s counsel argued before the Supreme Court that the prolonged delay and absence of a stay order from the High Court had allowed the criminal proceedings to progress to the stage of framing charges. This, they contended, rendered the petitioner’s plea ineffective.
After considering the submissions, the Supreme Court granted interim relief and directed the High Court to resolve the matter expeditiously.
“Till such time, the matter is considered next by the High Court, there shall be stay of proceedings before the trial court, i.e., the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Varanasi, in Case No. 330 of 2019. The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek extension of the order of stay till the disposal of the petition on merits,”
-the Court noted.
The petitioner, Ramdular Singh, was represented by Advocate on Record (AOR) Divyesh Pratap Singh, alongside Advocates Shivangi Singh, Suraj Prakash Singh, Amit Sangwan, Ashu Bhindwar, and Sneha Chandna.
Representing the State of Uttar Pradesh were Senior Advocate Ajay Kumar Mishra, AOR Garvesh Kabra, and Advocates Amit Singh, Avnish Deshpande, and Sujata Upadhyay.
This case sheds light on procedural inefficiencies and underscores the importance of timely judicial decision-making to ensure justice is not delayed or denied.
CASE TITLE:
Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Supreme Court Criticizes High Court
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
