Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that a judicial order cannot be set aside solely because it was delivered long after the conclusion of arguments, holding that delay by itself does not invalidate a judgment.
A Division Bench of Justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya was hearing a challenge to a writ court order delivered around 18 months after arguments had been reserved. The appellants argued that such a prolonged delay undermined the adversarial system and violated principles of natural justice, contending that it would be unrealistic for a judge to recall oral submissions after such a long interval.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court held that while prolonged delay in pronouncing judgments is a matter of concern, there is no legal principle under which a court automatically loses jurisdiction due to the passage of time. The Bench observed that existing judicial guidelines provide remedies to litigants facing delays, including seeking early pronouncement or administrative intervention, but do not mandate automatic invalidation of judgments delivered after a particular period.
The court drew a clear distinction between cases where only the operative portion of an order is pronounced and reasons are supplied much later, and cases where the entire judgment — including reasoning and conclusions — is delivered together after a delay. It noted that prejudice is significantly greater in the former category, as parties are left without reasons even as limitation periods may begin to run.
In the present case, the Bench found that the writ court judgment reflected detailed consideration of the rival submissions and legal issues, indicating that the court had adequately engaged with the matter despite the delay. There was no material to show that the decision was rendered without regard to the arguments advanced by the parties.
While expressing disappointment over the prolonged interval between hearing and delivery of judgment, the High Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage. It clarified that the challenge on the ground of delay stood rejected, while all other issues on merits remain open for consideration at the final hearing of the appeal.