LexRAVINDRA PRATAP SHAHI versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1525 : 2025 INSC 1039 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025) 25 August 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to issuance of directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments. Headnotes† Judicial process – Justice delivery system – Delay in pronouncing judgments after hearings – Judicial deprecation – On facts, criminal appeal pending before the Allahabad High Court since 2008, heard and reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but the judgment not delivered, and directed to be relisted before the Regular Bench – Propriety: Held: Extremely shocking and surprising that the judgment not delivered for almost a year from the date when the appeal was heard – Said situation not arisen for consideration for the first time – In most of the High Courts, no mechanism where the litigant can approach the concerned Bench or the Chief Justice bringing to its notice the delay in delivery of judgment – In such situation, the litigant loses his faith in the judicial process defeating the ends of justice – Directions already been issued by this Court in Anil Rai’s case that if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, the parties entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments, is reiterated and adherence to the principles laid down in Anil Rai’s case required – Further, directions issued to the High Courts on pronouncing reserved judgments – Registrar General of each High Court to furnish to the Chief Justice of the High Court list of cases where the judgment reserved is not pronounced within the remaining period of that month and keep on repeating the same for three months – If the judgment is not delivered within three months, Registrar General to place the matters before the Chief Justice for orders. [Paras 7, 10, 11] * Author 1526 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Anil Rai v. State of Bihar [2001] Supp. 1 SCR 298 : (2001) 7 SCC 318 – relied on. State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi [1984] 2 SCR 50 : (1984) 1 SCC 596; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. [2004] 3 SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158; Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana [2008] 2 SCR 80 : (2008) 7 SCC 96; Ajay Singh and Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh and Anr. [2017] 1 SCR 286 : (2017) 3 SCC 330; Balaji Baliram Mupade and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 2020 INSC 618 : (2021) 12 SCC 603; Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., 2024 INSC 801 : [2024] 10 SCR 2227; K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil and Ors., 2022 INSC 1025 : [2022] 7 SCR 425 – referred to. List of Keywords Directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments; Judicial process; Justice delivery system; Delay in pronouncing judgments after hearings; Deprecation; Allahabad High Court; Relisted before the Regular Bench; Defeating the ends of justice; Anil Rai’s case; Chief Justice of the High Court; Registrar General of each High Court. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 939 of 2008 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Devesh Monhan, Kush Chaturvedi, Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Syed Faraz Alam, Atharva Gaur, Aayushman Aggarwal. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, Abhisek Mohanty, Ashutosh Thakur, Aabhas Parimal. [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1527 Ravindra Pratap Shahi v. State of U.P. & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present Appeals have been preferred against the impugned interim orders dated 28.08.2024 and 09.01.2023 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.939 of 2008 by which the said criminal appeal preferred by respondent no.2 was not taken up for hearing. 3. By order dated 15.04.2025, this Court requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of three months. However, considering that the criminal appeal pending before the High Court was earlier reserved for orders on 24.12.2021, but the judgment was not delivered necessitating orde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.