Contempt for delay

The Supreme Court’s six-month timeline gets teeth with the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling that execution proceedings pending beyond six months would now amount to contempt of the SC judgment. At stake is not just the enforcement of decrees but the very credibility of the judicial system. Justice delayed, after all, is justice denied. The ruling draws strength from the Supreme Court’s 2021 precedent in Rahul S Shah vs Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and its March 2025 directive mandating the high courts to ensure timely disposal of execution petitions. Yet, even with such clarity, compliance has been patchy. Courts often pass judgments, but their enforcement languishes for years, leaving litigants frustrated and eroding public faith in the judiciary. By holding judicial officers and state authorities accountable through contempt proceedings, the high court has signalled that indifference to timelines will no longer be tolerated.

The wider judicial mood supports this course correction. Only last month, the SC rapped the Jharkhand High Court for 67 reserved judgments pending for years, calling it “a very disturbing issue.” It also pushed the Jharkhand HC to expedite 10 long-delayed death penalty cases. Similarly, the Chhattisgarh HC recently issued contempt notices to officials failing to implement compassionate appointment orders. These developments highlight a growing impatience with systemic inertia.

The real challenge, however, lies in addressing structural bottlenecks — vacant judicial posts, inadequate support staff and outdated procedures — that fuel delay. Technology-driven solutions like digital monitoring of execution timelines and regular audits can ensure accountability. Ultimately, contempt is a deterrent, but reform is the cure. The HC’s message is clear: decrees are not mere pieces of paper. If the judiciary’s authority is to command respect, its orders must translate swiftly into action.

Editorials