The Supreme Court on Friday observed that appellate courts should remain mindful of the heavy workload faced by High Courts and subordinate courts and avoid imposing strict timelines for disposal of cases.

A bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice AG Masih said the Supreme Court itself is generally reluctant to prescribe deadlines for High Courts or district courts to decide matters.

The observation came while hearing a plea filed by a man involved in a matrimonial dispute, seeking the return of his passport and an early hearing of his petition pending before the High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner requested the Supreme Court to direct the High Court to decide the matter within four weeks. Justice Nagarathna, however, declined to impose such a timeline.

“We don’t even like to indicate to district judges about dates for disposal. We will not do it for the High Court also. Every judge has their own docket to be complied with every day. You can request the High Court,” she remarked.

Justice Nagarathna also recalled her experience as a High Court judge and explained how directions from superior courts prescribing fixed timelines are viewed by judges handling cases at the ground level.

“When we were there in the High Court, we remember how we would treat such orders where the Supreme Court used to direct. Let us be frank. Our feeling then we do not want to replicate in a different way just because we are sitting here,” she observed.

The petitioner told the Court that several proceedings had arisen from a matrimonial dispute, including a Look Out Circular (LOC).

His counsel submitted that despite an order of protection passed by the High Court, the petitioner was arrested following the death of his father and his passport was impounded, which allegedly affected his livelihood.

It was further submitted that the High Court had repeatedly adjourned the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings along with the application for return of the passport. The matter was eventually listed for February 2027.

The Supreme Court declined to prescribe a fixed timeline but permitted the petitioner to approach the High Court seeking an earlier hearing.

“We reserve liberty to the petitioner herein to make an application for advancement of the case from Feb 2027 to an early date. If such an application is made the High Court shall consider the same having regard to the facts of the case and the fact that the petitioner is also seeking interim relief. The High Court shall endeavour to dispose of the main matter as early as possible,” the Court ordered.