The Supreme Court on Thursday declined to entertain a plea seeking expeditious hearing of a matter pending before the Allahabad High Court, observing that the top court cannot burden High Court judges with timelines without considering their already heavy caseload.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi made the observations while hearing a special leave petition seeking an early decision in a case pending since 2021.

During the hearing, the CJI referred to a recent order passed by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, who had recorded that after hearing matters till 7:10 PM, he was “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” to continue dictating judgment.

Referring to the order, the CJI said such instances require introspection on the part of the Supreme Court before routinely directing High Courts to expedite matters.

“As one of the judges wrote, and maybe rightly so, he said the Supreme Court had directed that the case be decided. It was around 6:50 or 7:10 in the evening. He specifically mentioned the time and observed that he had even missed lunch and was completely tired and exhausted. He said he would not be able to take up the case further. These observations in a judicial order require introspection on our part as well,” the CJI remarked.

The Bench noted that the judge had also mentioned having more than 200 fresh matters before him on the same day.

The CJI further observed that the Supreme Court receives several petitions every day seeking directions for expeditious hearings before the Allahabad High Court, and cautioned against creating a precedent where the apex court effectively starts controlling High Court rosters.

“Every day we get four to five such petitions, and out of them, three usually pertain to the Allahabad High Court. It will create a very bad precedent if, while sitting here, we virtually begin exercising de facto control over the High Court roster,” the Bench observed.

The Court acknowledged the immense burden faced by the Allahabad High Court despite having over 100 judges, and said that its Chief Justice was likely doing his best to manage the institution.

The Bench also underlined that prioritising one matter on the directions of the Supreme Court could come at the cost of older cases involving litigants who may not have the means to approach the apex court.

“People naturally want their matters to be decided, but these are serious systemic challenges. If we direct the High Court to take up one matter urgently, it may happen at the cost of another older case involving a poor litigant who could not approach this Court,” the CJI said.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court declined to entertain the plea, while granting liberty to the petitioner to move the High Court itself and seek an out-of-turn hearing