Too tired and hungry to write verdict: Allahabad High Court judge after hearing the case till 7:10 pm

Bureau Prayagraj- Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of Allahabad High Court recently explained in a judicial order how tiring it can be for a judge to dispose of a long list of cases in a single day. On February 24, after hearing a petition against an order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), the judge, instead of passing the order immediately, reserved the judgement, commenting,

“Because I am hungry, tired and physically incapable of delivering the judgment, the judgment is reserved.” Because I am hungry, tired and physically incapable of delivering the judgment, the judgment is reserved. The court recorded that it had started hearing the case at 4.15 pm and concluded it at 7:10 pm. He also gave the reason for hearing the case after working hours.

In August 2025, the Supreme Court had appealed to the High Court to decide on the petition as soon as possible, preferably within six months. The six-month period ended on February 24. The judge wrote, “Today there were 92 new cases, 101 regular cases, 39 new miss. applications and three cases listed in Additional/Unlisted List-I, II and III. Today only new cases up to serial number 29 could be heard. However, keeping in mind the order of the Honorable Supreme Court, the hearing of this case started at 4.15 pm and ended at 7.10 pm. It ended at 1:00.”

It is noteworthy that in May 2025, a coordinate bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia had rejected the order passed by the DRT saying that it was passed without hearing the petitioner. Without discussing the merits of the case, the judge had said, “After giving an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, the case is sent back to the DRT to pass a fresh order as per law.” However, in August 2025, the Supreme Court issued a new order. The case was sent back to the High Court. The top court found that there was a violation of natural justice in the case as no notice was issued to the borrower.

The Supreme Court said, “Being a violation of natural justice, the order dated May 26, 2025 cannot be sustained. It is rejected. As a result, the petition will come before the High Court again under Article 227 of the Constitution. The High Court is requested to decide on this petition on its merits as soon as possible and as per its convenience, preferably within six months.” Justice came before Vidyarthi for.