CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court Criticises Bengal Magistrate for Claiming Loss of Jurisdiction After Missing Case Deadline

Apex Court says trial judges cannot abdicate responsibility when timelines lapse

District Judge asked to seek explanation, ruling stresses judicial accountability

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi: September 30, 2025:

The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticised a Judicial Magistrate in West Bengal’s South 24 Parganas district for passing an unusual order that claimed he had “lost jurisdiction” over a case after failing to dispose of it within the timeline fixed by the apex court.

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale expressed displeasure at the conduct of the magistrate, who presided over the 4th Court at Alipore, and said that such an approach was “unacceptable and irregular.” The Court clarified that if a judge is unable to complete proceedings within a prescribed period, the proper course is to seek an extension of time, not to abandon jurisdiction.

The ruling came in the matter of Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw, a long-pending case that had been directed to be concluded within six weeks by an earlier Supreme Court order.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to 2017, when a complaint was filed by Rekha Shaw before the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore. Over the years, the matter went through several stages of litigation, eventually reaching the Supreme Court.

On January 18, 2024, the apex court disposed of a criminal appeal and directed the magistrate to conclude the trial within six weeks. However, when the deadline expired, the magistrate issued an order on March 19, 2024, stating that since he had failed to meet the timeline, he had ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter.

This prompted the petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate Rahul Kaushik, to approach the Supreme Court again, seeking clarification and modification of its earlier order.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench was visibly displeased with the magistrate’s reasoning. Justice Mithal, delivering the order, said:

“We are pained to note the manner in which the order has been passed by the learned Judge. If, for any reason, the Judge was not able to dispose of the matter within the prescribed time period fixed by this Court, the appropriate remedy available to him was to ask for extension of time, but he cannot say that he has lost jurisdiction over the matter as the time allowed has lapsed.”

The Court stressed that expiration of a court-imposed timeline does not divest a trial court of jurisdiction. Instead, the judge should have sought an extension from the higher court.

Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The apex court issued the following directions:

The District Judge of South 24 Parganas must seek an explanation from the concerned magistrate.
The magistrate must state why and under what circumstances he declared loss of jurisdiction.
A report must be submitted within one month to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the relevant authorities for necessary action.

The Court also allowed the petitioners two weeks to file their response and place on record the reasons for the delay in proceedings.

Legal and Judicial Significance

This ruling carries important implications for judicial accountability and case management:

Judicial Responsibility: The Court made it clear that trial judges cannot abdicate responsibility simply because a timeline has lapsed.
Extension Mechanism: Judges must use the mechanism of seeking extensions rather than passing irregular orders.
Judicial Discipline: The ruling reinforces the principle that judicial officers must act within the framework of law and procedure.
Public Confidence: Such rulings help maintain public trust in the judiciary by ensuring that cases are not derailed by procedural lapses.

Broader Context: Delays in Indian Judiciary

The case also highlights the larger issue of judicial delays in India. With over 4.5 crore cases pending across various courts, the judiciary has been under pressure to ensure timely disposal. The Supreme Court has often set strict deadlines for lower courts in sensitive or long-pending matters.

However, this incident shows the challenges trial courts face in balancing heavy caseloads with strict timelines. The apex court’s ruling sends a message that while delays may occur, judges cannot escape responsibility by declaring loss of jurisdiction.

Reactions from Legal Experts

Legal experts have welcomed the Supreme Court’s intervention. Many have pointed out that if such orders were allowed to stand, it could set a dangerous precedent where trial judges might avoid responsibility by citing missed deadlines.

Senior lawyers noted that the ruling reinforces the hierarchical accountability of the judiciary and ensures that litigants are not left in limbo due to procedural irregularities.

Case-Specific Impact

For the parties involved in Shiv Kumar Shaw vs. Rekha Shaw, the ruling means that the trial will continue under proper judicial supervision. The District Judge’s inquiry into the magistrate’s conduct will also determine whether any disciplinary action is warranted.

The Supreme Court’s directions ensure that the case will not be stalled indefinitely and that responsibility for the delay is properly examined.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s sharp criticism of the Bengal magistrate underscores the importance of judicial accountability and discipline. By clarifying that jurisdiction cannot be lost simply because a deadline lapses, the Court has reinforced the principle that justice must not be derailed by procedural shortcuts.

The ruling is a reminder that while timelines are important, the duty of a judge to deliver justice remains paramount. The decision will likely serve as a precedent for future cases where trial courts face similar situations.

SC Slams Bengal Magistrate for Evading Case Duty Delay