Judges reserving orders erode trust: SC

NEw new delhi: The trend of book of judges to hold orders and hold up pronouncement for months together is seriously discrediting the judiciary and eroding public trust in the system, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday as it set out to examine issuing uniform guidelines for judgments to be handed over to litigants within a specified time period.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi made the observation while dealing with a batch of petitions from the Jharkhand High Court where judgments reserved in both civil and criminal cases had not been pronounced for over a year.In one such case filed by Mivaan Steels Limited, the high court had reserved its judgment in July 2023 and it was only after the company approached the apex court last year that the verdict was pronounced on December 4, 2025. The company informed the top court that it was yet to receive a physical copy of the judgment.“We agree this problem is creating a discredit to the system and is seriously eroding trust of litigants in courts,” the bench remarked.The top court was further informed that the pending cases in the Jharkhand High Court also comprised appeals by life convicts, who are uncertain about exercising their legal remedy of seeking premature release from the respective state government.Last year, the apex court had appointed advocate Fauzia Shakil as amicus curiae (friend of court) and sought information on judgments that were reserved but yet to be pronounced. On Tuesday, Shakil submitted a compilation of data from 25 high courts.“This is a challenge before the judiciary. It is part of an identified ailment of the system and must be cured. This requires urgent treatment,” the bench said.Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Mivaan Steels, pointed out that in the Jharkhand High Court alone, 61 civil appeals were reserved for judgment till January 2025 of which 46 matters were before one judge. He further informed the bench about another practice prevailing in some high courts where a judge, after having reserved judgment, lists the matter to seek clarification and the matter goes in limbo.“This court must frame a standard operating procedure (SOP) to suggest a deadline that judgments should be delivered within a specified period and it should apply across all high courts,” Rohatgi said. He suggested the CJI should take up the matter requiring periodic data of judgments reserved for a long time with chief justices of high courts.“This definitely does not bring a good name to the judiciary,” the CJI remarked, adding he has never reserved judgments beyond three months. “If you know your capacity to write judgments, you will accordingly hear and reserve matters for orders.”The court asked the amicus to give suggestions on the SOP relating to the category of cases where the court may issue an operative order and the time within which a reasoned order or judgment should be passed. With regard to the matter argued by Rohatgi, the court asked the high court to ensure the judgment copy was made available within two weeks.