In a stern order, the Supreme Court of India has directed the District Judge of South 24 Parganas, West Bengal, to seek an explanation from the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Alipore, for erroneously claiming loss of jurisdiction over a case after failing to dispose of it within the stipulated six-week timeframe set by the apex court. The ruling, passed on September 26, 2025, in Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw (Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 45777/2024), expresses the Court’s dismay at the magistrate’s approach, emphasizing that the appropriate remedy was to seek an extension rather than abdicating jurisdiction. The Court has mandated a report within one month and allowed the petitioners two weeks to respond with reasons for the delay in the underlying case.
Background of the Case
The miscellaneous application arises from an impugned final judgment dated January 18, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No. 2842/2023. In that order, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with specific directions, including instructing the Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas, to resolve case AC-2053 of 2017 within six weeks.
However, the magistrate, unable to meet the deadline, issued an order on March 19, 2024, stating that due to the lapse of the prescribed period, he had ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter and would not proceed further. This prompted the petitioners, Shiv Kumar Shaw and another, to file the present application seeking condonation of delay and modification of the earlier order.
The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale, condoned the delay in filing the application. The respondent, Rekha Shaw, was represented by counsel who appeared without formal notice.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Court expressed strong disapproval of the magistrate’s order, noting: “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.”
Accordingly, the Court issued the following directives:
- The concerned District Judge must call for an explanation from the Judicial Magistrate and submit a report to the Supreme Court within one month. The explanation should detail why the magistrate claimed loss of jurisdiction and refused to proceed.
- The petitioners’ counsel, Rahul Kaushik, was granted two weeks to file a response and place on record the reasons for the delay in deciding the underlying case.
- The Registry was instructed to send a copy of the order to the relevant authorities.
The Court heard arguments from senior advocate Rahul Kaushik and advocates Rajeev Maheshwaranand Roy and Nilesh Kumar for the petitioners, and Shambo Nandy for the respondent.
Implications
This order underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring judicial accountability and adherence to time-bound directives. It serves as a reminder to lower judiciary that deadlines imposed by higher courts are not jurisdictional bars but guidelines to expedite justice. Failure to comply should prompt requests for extensions rather than unilateral cessation of proceedings. The ruling may influence how subordinate courts handle similar situations, promoting efficiency while maintaining hierarchical discipline. It also highlights ongoing efforts to address delays in the judicial system, particularly in criminal matters.
Case Details: Shiv Kumar Shaw & Anr. vs. Rekha Shaw (Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 45777/2024 arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 2842/2023)
Click HERE for full ORDER
Lawcutor 