Premium

‘Feeling hungry, tired, physically incapacitated’: Allahabad HC judge’s candid reason for not delivering verdict

After a nearly three-hour hearing, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi noted that the physical toll of the day prevented him from delivering the verdict immediately.

Although the protection for Haseen Khan is interim, it has already made its mark (File Photo)

3 min readFeb 28, 2026 10:49 AM IST First published on: Feb 28, 2026 at 10:48 AM IST

In a candid admission rarely seen in judicial records, a judge of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court stated in an order on February 24 that he was “feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate [a] judgment” after a nearly three-hour hearing that went on till after 7 pm.

Justice Subhash Vidyarthi passed the order on Tuesday, noting that the physical toll of the day prevented him from delivering the verdict immediately, despite the conclusion of arguments.

The urgency behind the late-evening hearing stemmed from a directive issued by the Supreme Court six months ago.

On August 25, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih had remanded the matter back to the high court, requesting it to decide the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution “preferably within six months”. Article 227 gives high courts the power of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout their jurisdiction.

In his order on February 24, Justice Vidyarthi noted that the six-month timeline set by the Supreme Court was expiring that very day. To comply with the deadline, he took up the matter despite an overwhelming cause list that day.

Justice Vidyarthi recorded that on Tuesday, listed before him were “92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh misc [miscellaneous] applications and three matters listed in the additional/unlisted list”. Due to this high volume, he was able to take up for hearing fresh cases only up to serial number 29 during the regular court hours.

His court commenced the hearing for the matter directed for expedition by the Supreme Court at 4.15 pm, after the usual court hours. The arguments continued for nearly three hours, concluding at 7.10 pm.

Following the conclusion of arguments, the court decided to reserve the judgment rather than dictate it in open court.

Explaining the reason, Justice Vidyarthi wrote: “Since I am feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate the judgment, the judgment is reserved.”

‘Breach of natural justice’

The case stems from a dispute involving a September 2024 Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) order. In May 2025, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the high court had noted allegations of “prima-facie misconduct” against the presiding officer of the DRT, describing the tribunal’s order being challenged before the court as “suspicious” and remanding the matter back to the DRT for a fresh order.

However, the Supreme Court intervened in August 2025 after finding that the high court had quashed the DRT order without giving the other party a chance to be heard. Citing this “breach of natural justice”, the apex court revived the petition and sent it back to the high court for a fresh decision on merits.

The case then came up for hearing before Justice Vidyarthi on February 10, when it was adjourned due to respondents’ lawyers not being present in court, and on February 17, when it was adjourned again at the request of the lawyers for all parties, leading to the expedited hearing on Tuesday.