The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a husband seeking a direction to the trial court at Soraba to expedite his divorce petition filed in 2026, observing that judicial officers cannot be pressurised with rigid deadlines and that 'justice is not merely about speed'.
The single judge bench of Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that the quality and fairness of judicial decisions cannot be compromised in the course of speedy disposal. The court observed that the High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication of matters. It further stated that judgments cannot be obtained by a click of a button and that reaching a correct and fair conclusion after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task.
The court elaborated that undue pressure on judicial officers can affect the quality of justice rendered. While endeavour must be made to avoid undue delays, it should not affect judicial independence. It quoted an analogy, stating that working professionals cannot be bulldozed through unreasonable deadlines and that extraction of work by controlling authorities should be like a sound from a musical instrument well played, never like a sugarcane crusher where every drop is extracted ruthlessly, leaving the cane shapeless, tasteless and useless.
The court emphasised that judges must be given full freedom to conduct courts in a judicious manner, allotting the time and space necessary for scrutiny of matters. It noted that while unnecessary delay cannot be permitted, accountability can be achieved only when there is freedom from undue pressure. Judicial officers cannot be overburdened by entertaining writ petitions seeking rigid time limits for disposal of cases, as every judicial officer is a master of his or her court and each case is unique, sometimes not fitting within predetermined timelines.
Examining the trial court records, the court found that the judge at Soraba was acting expeditiously. The case was posted for cross-examination of Respondent Witness 1 after the respondent-wife filed her affidavit. The court appreciated the presiding officer for dealing with the matter in the manner it ought to be dealt with and for the endeavour to dispose of the case in a time-bound manner.
The court pointed out the practical difficulties of imposing rigid timelines on trial courts, noting that in such matters, if advocates do not come forward to conduct cases or seek time for any reason, presiding officers would undoubtedly become stressed. The very thought of being necessitated to file applications seeking High Court intervention for further time would sometimes make judicial officers feel low or gloomy.
Consequently, the court found no grounds to grant the relief claimed and dismissed the writ petition. The case is designated as WP No.24556/2026.