How long does the Supreme Court take to deliver a judgement?

A judgement is considered to be reserved when a Bench of the Supreme Court concludes hearing arguments, typically, by a declaration that says “judgement reserved”. The expectation is that a decision will be pronounced within the forthcoming weeks. A review of 60 cases in which the Court reserved judgement during July 2025 shows a nuanced picture: most matters are disposed of with considerable speed, while a smaller group of cases calls for closer attention. 

July 2025 has been chosen as the reference month for two reasons: 

1. This is the first month after the summer vacation, marking a fresh beginning for the Court in the 2025-2026 calendar. 
2. As we are now in April 2026, it gives sufficient window to track judgements which might not have been delivered despite being reserved.  

The expectation is that the judgement is not kept pending indefinitely. The procedural benchmark often cited is Order XX Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which contemplates pronouncement within 30 days. Delay beyond that is treated as exceptional.

The Supreme Court, in Anil Rai v State of Bihar (2001), held that long delays in pronouncing a judgement is a systemic concern and indicated that parties may seek an administrative intervention from the Chief Justice if no verdict is delivered for an unduly long period. It can also result in a fresh hearing in extreme situations. 

As of 27 April, verdicts in seven cases continue to remain pending.

Twenty-eight judgements out of the 53 disposed cases were pronounced within 30 days of being reserved. Thirty-nine were delivered within 60 days. Over a quarter of cases required more than two months, and in one instance considerably more. Thirteen cases were disposed of in the 61 to 150 day range, and one case took over 180 days. 

Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa and connected matters were disposed of on 11 March 2026, after a gap of 226 days from the 28 July 2025 reservation order. The case dealt with the question of whether serving or former judicial officers are eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment, and whether their judicial service counts toward the seven-year practice requirement under Article 233(2) of the Constitution. A Constitution Bench had answered this question definitively on 9 October 2025 holding that judicial officers are eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges, and their past service counts toward the minimum practice period. The March 2026 order dealt with implementing those directions across all pending cases.

Our sample of seven is too small to draw any inference regarding the reasons for delay in delivery of judgements. None of the Benches which had reserved the undelivered judgements includes the Chief Justice, so that cannot answer the question whether a judgement reserved by a Chief Justice Bench takes longer than by a puisne judge.The median disposal time, at 27 days, is a more instructive figure than the mean of 47 days. The mean figure is pulled upward by a few cases that extended over many months. Therefore, nearly half of all disposed cases were resolved in under four weeks.   

The cases in the extended group—60 days and more range—present an opportunity for the Court to apply its case management guidelines on expediting reserved judgements.

There is no statutory deadline for the delivery of a reserved judgement. The Supreme Court’s case management guidelines have consistently emphasised prompt delivery, and in practice a gap of more than 90 days in a routine matter calls for the activation of the Court’s available review mechanisms.

What are the seven pending cases?

In September 2025, the Supreme Court, in, U.P. Asbestos Ltd. v State of Rajasthan, held that States can tax goods from other States only if they tax similar goods produced within their own State in the same way. It was a challenge to a notification by the Rajasthan government exempting locally manufactured asbestos cement sheets. In November 2025, the Court halted the proposed translocation of spotted deer from the A.N. Jha Deer Park in New Delhi Nature Society v. Director (Horticulture), DDA. Both have been relisted for consequential directions, and in the latter a fresh order has been reserved on a pending interlocutory application.

In the second, M.A. Subramanian v State of Tamil Nadu, the Court heard a challenge against the Madras High Court’s refusal to quash corruption proceedings against a former Mayor of Chennai. The case was reopened after reserving  in July 2025 to decide the question of who grants sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act when the allegations concern an office the accused has vacated. What began as a reserved judgement has become a pending reference question.

In the third, National Legal Services Authority v Union of India, a writ petition filed by NALSA seeking directions for the compassionate release of elderly and terminally ill prisoners, continues to await a first pronouncement. S.H. Seik Hussain v. K. Aruldos concerns a motor accident compensation appeal from the Madras High Court which concerns whether carrying two pillion riders amounts to contributory negligence in breach of Section 128 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Basishtha Narayan Choubey v International Asset Reconstruction Company, is an appeal arising out of proceedings against an Asset Reconstruction Company registered under the SARFAESI Act; and Susanta Kumar Dalei v. State of Odisha, is a special leave petition against the Orissa High Court’s refusal to quash proceedings initiated by the State Vigilance Directorate.

Conclusion

Taken together, the data indicates that the Court’s capacity to deliver reserved judgements is considerable: 88 per cent of the July 2025 cohort has been disposed of, and the median turnaround stands at 27 days. The seven cases that continue to await pronouncement present a clear and addressable opportunity to ensure that no reserved judgement passes beyond institutional visibility.

The Court’s case management guidelines contemplate the re-listing of matters in which judgement has not been pronounced within a specified period after reservation. The consistent exercise of this provision, alongside a publicly accessible reserved-judgement tracker updated in real time, would be a proportionate and constructive step towards reinforcing the Court’s already strong record on timely delivery. 

Methodology: Data compiled from Supreme Court Daily Orders during July 2025. The Free Text option was used to search for orders with words “Judgment Reserved’ choosing the period from 1 July to 31 July 2025. Through the Case Status section, it was ascertained which of these 60 cases were pending. The number of days was calculated from the date of reservation to the date of pronouncement for disposed cases. Total cases: 60; disposed: 53; Shown as pending: 7.

(The author is an independent data analyst)