LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/ravindra-pratap-shahi-vs-state-of-u-p-ors-20250825/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Ravindra Pratap Shahi vs State of U.P. & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
25 August 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3700-3701 of 2025
Result
Disposed
Bench
Sanjay Karol, Prashant Kumar Mishra
Citation
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1525 : 2025 INSC 1039
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1525 : 2025 INSC 1039
Issue for consideration
Matter pertains to issuance of directions to High Courts on the Reserved Judgments.
Headnote

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]

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

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →