Delhi High Court says reserved judgments cannot remain unpronounced due to transfer of judge

The Delhi High Court recently flagged the issue of where reserved judgments remaining unpronounced due to transfer of judges.

"Such an approach, if accepted, may create a precedent where matters in which judgments have already been reserved are, after transfer of the Presiding Officer, sent back to the successor court on tenuous grounds, thereby unsettling the settled procedure governing pronouncement of reserved judgments and introducing avoidable uncertainty into the judicial process", Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma has observed.

Notably, a petition was filed before the High Court seeking transfer of a case, arising out of FIR No. 207/2019, registered at Police Station Special Cell, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [hereafter „MCOCA‟], from the Court of the ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Predecessor Judge, who was presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the limited purpose of pronouncement of judgment.

High Court noted that the judgment in the present case was reserved by the Predecessor Judge on 04.07.2025 and was thereafter listed for pronouncement on several dates, including 30.07.2025, 23.08.2025, 25.09.2025, 09.10.2025, 25.10.2025 and 07.11.2025. On 07.11.2025, the Predecessor Judge was ready to pronounce the judgment; however, the same could not be pronounced as the accused persons were produced through video conferencing and were directed to remain physically present before the Court on the next date, i.e., 28.11.2025. Before the said date could arrive, the Predecessor Judge came to be transferred. Consequently, on 28.11.2025, the matter was taken up by the Successor Judge, who adjourned the matter to 03.12.2025 for pronouncement of judgment by the Predecessor Judge. On 03.12.2025, however, the Predecessor Judge transferred the matter to the Successor Judge on the ground that certain clarifications were required to be sought in the matter, which would necessitate the presence of the Investigating Officer.

"Once final arguments had been fully heard, the learned Predecessor Judge was bound to pronounce the judgment. Directing a rehearing of arguments in such circumstances not only defeats the mandate of the transfer orders and the law laid down by this Court, but also results in avoidable delay in adjudication and places an unnecessary burden upon the learned Successor Judge, who is compelled to rehear a matter that has already been fully argued," Justice Sharma noted.

High Court also reflected on the manner in which the matter was repeatedly listed for pronouncement of judgment by the Predecessor Judge. "It is difficult to reconcile the readiness to pronounce judgment on 07.11.2025 with the later position that the matter required further clarification. Judicial proceedings cannot oscillate between readiness and uncertainty in this manner, particularly after the trial has concluded and the case has stood reserved for judgment for a considerable period of time i.e. for about five months", the bench said.

"Courts must remain mindful of the human element inherent in criminal adjudication. While procedural fairness is undoubtedly important, it cannot be carried to an extent that defeats substantive justice. In the present case, directing a rehearing would not further fairness; instead, it would cause avoidable delay and hardship to the accused and undermine the finality of a trial that has already concluded," the high court added.

It further observed that jurisprudence on speedy justice makes it clear that avoidable and unexplained delay, when accompanied by demonstrable prejudice, renders the process arbitrary and unconstitutional. Justice delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for pronouncement of judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law, it has said.

"In view of the foregoing discussion and the undisputed fact that Sessions Case No. 143/2020 was heard in its entirety and reserved for judgment by the learned Predecessor Judge for five months, this Court is of the considered opinion – for the reasons set out above – that the learned Predecessor Judge was duty-bound to pronounce the judgment in the said case. Accordingly, Sessions Case No. 143/2020, arising out of FIR No. 207/2019, registered at P.S. Special Cell, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 3/4 of the MCOCA, is directed to be transferred from the Court of the learned ASJ-03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, to the Court of the learned Predecessor Judge, presently posted as Judge, Family Court-02, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, for the purpose of pronouncement of judgment, in compliance with Order No. 45/D-3/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 18.11.2025 and Order No. 48/D-2/Gaz.IA/DHC/2025 dated 26.11.2025. The judgment be pronounced by the learned Judge within a period of 2-3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order", the High Court has ordered.

Case Title: PARVESH MANN @ SAGAR MANN vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma

Judgment Date: January 5, 2026