![\"SC](\"https:\/\/static.toiimg.com\/thumb\/msid-129965286,imgsize-87360,width-400,height-225,resizemode-4\/thumbnail-4.jpg\" "\\"<p>.<\/p>\\"")
<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\nNEW DELHI: The SC’s recent judicial attempts to sensitise HC judges against reserving verdicts in order to avoid delaying justice delivery and causing anxiety to litigants appears to have had little impact on some of its own judges.Take for instance two judgments delivered by Justice Manoj Misra on Wednesday. One pertained to a criminal case lodged in 2001, in which the trial court had given its verdict in 2007 and the HC in 2012. The appellant, Samarendra Kundu, had filed an appeal in SC in 2012.A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Misra had reserved its verdict after hearing counsel for Kundu and respondent Sadhana Das on Oct 25, 2024, more than 17 months ago. The judgment finally delivered by Justice Misra on Wednesday ended a criminal case that began its snail-paced journey through the justice delivery system a quarter of century ago.The second judgment delivered by Justice Misra – in Jaiprakash Saini vs Managing Director, UP Cooperative Federation – pertained to an appeal against an Apr 2019 judgment of Allahabad HC.In this case, a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Misra had reserved its verdict on May 6 last year, nearly 11 months ago. SC Registry sources said the presiding judges – Justices Pardiwala and Karol – had reminded Justice Misra several times about the pendency of the judgment.In Feb this year, Justice Misra had delivered the judgment in ‘B Prashanth Hegde vs State Bank of India’ after keeping it reserved for more than a year and two months.In 2001, the top court in Anil Rai case noted a practice among HC judges of reserving verdicts, only to forget to pronounce them or pronounce just the operative part of the verdict, promising detailed reasons later. SC had ruled that if a judgment remained reserved for more than six months, then the litigants could make an application to the chief justice concerned for listing the case for fresh hearing before another bench.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n