Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court recently disapproved the practice of trial court judges writing directly to the Registry of the apex court seeking extension of time in matters where directions have been issued to expedite trials.

“It has been our persistent experience that in cases where this Court has issued directions for the expeditious conclusions of trials, the concerned judges have been corresponding with the Registry of this Court and subsequently, those letters are placed before the Court for orders. We deem such practice to be wholly unacceptable”, the Court held.

A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Aravind Kumar clarified that it is the duty of the Registry of the concerned High Court to supervise the progress of such cases. If any extension is required, the request must be examined by the immediate supervisory officer and forwarded to the Supreme Court by either the Registrar General or the Registrar Judicial of the High Court.

“In cases, where a direction to conclude the trial, suit or appeal is issued by this Court, it is the duty of the Registry of the High Court concerned to supervise the progress of such cases. If an extension is required, it may be granted with the satisfaction of the immediate supervisory officer and the correspondence in this regard shall be forwarded to this Court by either Registrar General or Registrar Judicial proposing the same”, the Court held.

The Court made this observation while dealing with a bail petition filed through Advocate-on-Record Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary. The petition had earlier been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 July 2023, with the direction that the trial be expedited and completed within 18 months, as far as possible. The Court had stated that depending on the completion of recording of all victims' statements, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for bail afresh.

Pursuant to this order, the Registry of the Supreme Court had communicated the Court's directions to the concerned court through a letter dated 26 July 2023. However, the trial judge sent a letter dated 20 March 2025 directly to the Supreme Court Registry, seeking a few more months to dispose of the case.

The Supreme Court stated that such a practice is not acceptable.

The Court also referred to another case, Ramkishore @ Kallu v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. where a similar issue was raised. In that case, after the Court's direction, the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court framed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) laying down the process for judicial officers to request extensions of time in such cases.

The SOP applies to all presiding officers in the District Judiciary handling time-bound trials, suits, or proceedings. It prohibits direct communication with the Registries of the Supreme Court or High Court. All extension requests must be routed through proper channels.

In cases where the High Court has expedited the trial, the request for extension must be sent through the Principal District Judge or the Principal Judge, Family Court the Registrar (Judicial) at the Principal Bench, Jabalpur, or the Principal Registrar at Indore or Gwalior, using both official email and regular mode.

In cases where the Supreme Court has expedited the trial, the High Court Registrar (Judicial) or Principal Registrar will forward the request to the Supreme Court Registry.

Requests must include case details, date of the superior court's order, current status, reasons for delay, and specific extension period sought, in a tabular format. A note from the Principal District Judge or Registrar may be added if required. The SOP warns against repeated or unjustified delays and mandates monthly monitoring and record maintenance by the High Court Registrars.

In order to ensure uniformity of practice, the Supreme Court directed that this order be communicated to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts.

“To carve out the said practice in other High Courts, it is essential to communicate this Order to the Registrar Generals of the respective High Courts so that they may place the matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for preparation of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) outlining the manner in which cases wherein directions have been issued to expedite the hearing or conclusion of trial, suit or appeal shall be corresponded with the registry of this Court”, the Court directed.

The Supreme Court directed its Registry to send this order to all High Courts so that corrective measures may be taken and reports submitted, and listed the matter after one month.

Case no. – Miscellaneous Application No. 919/2025 in SLP(Crl) No. 3607/2023

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 656

Case Title – Durgawati @ Priya v. CBI

Click Here To Read/Download Order