Supreme Court Raises Concerns Over Delayed Appeals
In a significant move on June 9, 2026, the Supreme Court of India voiced its serious concerns regarding the prolonged delay in resolving a criminal appeal by the Allahabad High Court. This appeal, submitted by a defendant accused of murder, languished for 40 years before the Supreme Court intervened, finally bringing it to a close in its June 9 ruling. The apex court also questioned what innovative strategies could be implemented to tackle the growing backlog in the Allahabad High Court.
The Challenge of Case Pendency
The issue of case pendency in the Allahabad High Court is not solely due to an overwhelming number of cases. It is also rooted in the procedural journey a case undertakes from its initial listing to its eventual hearing. A typical day at the Allahabad High Court sees around 800 criminal matters on the docket, with fresh filings sometimes exceeding 400 cases, including writs, bail applications, and quashing petitions.
When new cases are not addressed due to time constraints, they are categorized as leftover matters. These matters then gain precedence over newly filed cases in subsequent listings, resulting in a backlog that delays hearings for weeks.
From Initial Listing to Substantive Hearing
Once a fresh case is heard and an order is issued, it transitions into the regular cause list. Unfortunately, these cases often fall into a section of the list that is not reached during regular court hours. To be heard out of turn, a case must demonstrate urgent need. However, the queue for out-of-turn mentions is extensive, and court time allocated for such cases is limited.
This procedural delay disproportionately affects the parties involved. For instance, in a petition to quash an FIR, an interim court order may halt further investigation, benefiting the accused but potentially disadvantaging the complainant seeking swift justice.
More Read
Conversely, if a court does not issue protective orders on an initial hearing, various factors may delay the process further, such as missing files, the need for additional pleadings, or adjournments due to counsel unavailability. Such cases are relegated to the regular list, becoming effectively invisible.
Existing Measures and Their Shortcomings
The Allahabad High Court has attempted to mitigate this with an “oldest pending” category, prioritizing cases filed before 2014. Despite this initiative, the system often falls short. In many old cases, counsels have passed away, clients have lost contact, or those under interim protection seek adjournments, rendering special slots ineffective.
Blueprint for Future Improvements
Addressing these challenges requires a multifaceted approach. Firstly, increasing the judge-to-case ratio is imperative. Additionally, immediate procedural safeguards must be implemented to prevent perpetuating inequalities, especially in cases concerning personal liberty.
It is crucial to establish a stricter timeline for personal liberty matters, ensuring decisions within a year if no interim protection is granted. This maintains the effectiveness of the right to appeal and protects individual liberty.
Furthermore, the “oldest pending” category should focus on disposal rather than mere listing. Routine adjournments must be minimized, and mechanisms developed for advancing cases not heard despite being listed.
Before listing old matters, the Registry should verify counsel availability, client traceability, and the current relevance of the case. If necessary, legal services should appoint new counsel, and cases without a surviving cause of action should be dismissed or resolved with reasons.
Conclusion: A Call for Institutional Response
The Supreme Court’s intervention should prompt a more focused institutional response from the Allahabad High Court and others. The emphasis must shift from merely listing cases to ensuring they reach substantive hearings. The Supreme Court’s June 9 order encourages introspection on the institutional practices of High Courts, aiming for justice delivery beyond procedural progress. Effective justice requires not only prioritization but also timely hearing, decision, and appeal processes.
Tanishk Goyal is an advocate practicing before the Allahabad High Court.
