rahulNovember 14, 20261 Mins read1
NEW DELHI: Delhi High Court has directed its registry to seek explanations from a trial court judge, the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) and the district judge concerned over the failure to pronounce an order that was pending since April 22, 2026.Taking note of the remarks in the trial court’s order sheets, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora sought clarification on the staff shortage and backlog of over 4,500 cases, which were cited to explain the delay.The matter stems from a petition filed by Pradeep Bansal and others under Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking time-bound disposal of an application dated April 8, 2024. The application seeks vacation of an interim stay granted on Dec 1, 2023, in a domestic violence complaint pending before a judicial magistrate, first class, in north Delhi.Justice Arora noted that arguments on the application were completed on Jan 6, 2026, but the trial court was yet to pronounce its order. The matter has remained pending for pronouncement since April 22 and has been deferred four times, most recently on Oct 27.After examining the trial court’s order sheets, the high court observed that they did not disclose any clear reason for the prolonged delay. What particularly caught the judge’s attention, however, were repeated references to administrative constraints in the trial court’s proceedings.One of the order sheets recorded: “This court is working with only one stenographer and having pendency of more than 4,500 cases.”Noting that the remark appeared in the order sheet and was followed by similar observations in subsequent orders, Justice Arora sought an explanation from the CJM and the district judge on the circumstances in which these remarks were made. They have been asked to clarify the staffing situation and the extent of case pendency in that court.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The trial judge, meanwhile, has been asked to explain why the order has not been pronounced when arguments were concluded in Jan. The registry has been directed to obtain reports from all three judicial authorities, covering both the reasons for the delay and the administrative constraints cited, two days before the next hearing on Dec 3.
Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident
