In a sharply worded order delivered on 30 September 2025, the Supreme Court of India reprimanded a Judicial Magistrate in West Bengal who claimed he had ceased to hold jurisdiction over a pending trial after failing to complete proceedings within a six-week timeframe set by the apex court. The Bench (Justices Pankaj Mithal and P. B. Varale) made clear that missing a deadline cannot justify “abandoning” a case. Instead, a trial judge must seek an extension or continue proceedings, not invoke a loss of jurisdiction.
The case is titled Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw (MA 1827/2025 in Crl.A. No. 2842/2023).
Background Facts
- The dispute originates from earlier proceedings in Alipore, South 24 Parganas (West Bengal), relating to a criminal complaint lodged by Rekha Shaw in 2017.
- Over time, the litigation escalated, and ultimately reached the Supreme Court in a criminal appeal.
- In January 2024, the Supreme Court disposed of the criminal appeal and directed the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Alipore, to conclude the trial within six weeks.
- When the magistrate failed to complete the trial within that period, on 19 March 2024 he passed an order stating that, since he could not finish within the prescribed time, he “ceased to have jurisdiction” to hear the matter further.
- Dissatisfied with this order, the petitioners returned to the Supreme Court seeking modification of the earlier directive and corrective action.
Supreme Court’s Findings & Directions
Timeline Default ≠ Loss of Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court emphasised that expiration of a timeline fixed by a superior court does not automatically divest a subordinate court of its jurisdiction. The Bench observed:
“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.”
Thus, the act of “dropping responsibility” simply because a deadline has passed is neither permissible nor tenable.
Unacceptable Judicial Conduct
The Bench expressed “pain” and serious displeasure at the manner in which the magistrate chose to treat his role. He was reminded that a judicial officer cannot abdicate responsibility once a timeline lapses. The court characterised the order as “uncommon” and “irregular.”
Directions: Explanation & Report
- The Supreme Court directed the District Judge of South 24 Parganas (the supervisory authority) to call for a written explanation from the magistrate within one month. This explanation must set out why and under what circumstances the magistrate believed he had lost jurisdiction and refrained from further proceedings.
- The court allowed the petitioners two weeks to file a response, addressing the reasons for delay, and permitted them to bring on record any applicable explanations.
- A copy of the Supreme Court order is to be forwarded to relevant authorities (for administrative follow-up).
In effect, the court reaffirmed that a trial court must either proceed, or formally seek extension; it cannot unilaterally throw up its hands.
Legal & Policy Implications
This ruling has multiple important takeaways for judicial administration, litigants’ rights, and court discipline:
1. Discipline in Meeting Deadlines
Higher courts routinely impose deadlines to speed up justice and avoid undue delay. But this decision clarifies that such orders are not self-executing dispensations of jurisdiction. If a subordinate court cannot comply due to constraints, the proper remedy is extension—not abandonment.
2. Accountability of Trial Courts
By ordering a written explanation and supervisory oversight, the Supreme Court reinforces that trial judges remain accountable. The mechanism of requesting reports from the District Judge further strengthens institutional checks on errant judicial behaviour.
3. Safeguard of Litigants’ Rights
Claims that a court has “lost jurisdiction” could prejudice litigants—especially those waiting for resolution after years of pendency. The Supreme Court’s approach protects litigants from being left in limbo simply because a timeline lapsed.
4. Precedential Value
While the order addresses specific factual circumstances, it sends a strong message: deadlines are binding but do not override the duty to decide or seek extension. Lower courts will be more cautious before suggesting they lack jurisdiction because of a missed timeline.
