E-Paper
‘Hungry, tired’: Allahabad HC judge reserves order after 3-hour overtime
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, after hearing a matter for nearly three hours beyond regular court hours to honour a six-month deadline fixed by the Supreme Court, recorded that he was too “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” to dictate the judgment , and reserved orders.
A judicial order from the Allahabad High Court has drawn attention for its striking candour. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, after hearing a matter for nearly three hours beyond regular court hours to honour a six-month deadline fixed by the Supreme Court, recorded that he was too “hungry, tired and physically incapacitated” to dictate the judgment , and reserved orders.
The unusual development came in a petition filed by Chandralekha Singh against the Regional Office of Canara Bank. The matter was listed before Justice Subhash Vidyarthi under the category “Hon’ble Supreme Court expedited matters”.
The judge, on February 24, recorded that while remanding the matter on August 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India had requested the high court to decide the petition “as early as possible, preferably within six months” -- a period that expired on the very day the matter was taken up.
Detailing the day’s workload, Justice Vidyarthi noted that the bench had before it 92 fresh matters, 101 regular matters, 39 fresh miscellaneous applications, and three additional unlisted matters. Only fresh cases up to serial number 29 could be heard during regular hours.
However, keeping in view the Supreme Court’s timeline, the judge commenced hearing the case at 4:15 pm -- well beyond normal hours, and concluded arguments at 7:10 pm.
The order then took an unusual turn. “Since I am feeling hungry, tired and physically incapacitated to dictate the judgment, the judgment is reserved,” the judge recorded.
On May 26, 2025, Justice Pankaj Bhatia of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court had quashed a September 2, 2024 order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The petitioner had contended that the DRT order was passed without granting a hearing. The high court order noted that in similar matters, the court had found prima facie misconduct by a DRT officer and had even directed the CBI to proceed in connected cases involving suspicious orders that did not inspire confidence.
Accepting the grievance of lack of hearing, Justice Bhatia quashed the DRT’s order and remanded the matter back to the tribunal with directions to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of hearing. The DRT was also asked to endeavour to decide the matter expeditiously.
The borrower challenged the high court’s remand order before the Supreme Court. In August 2025, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta set aside the May 26 high court order. The Supreme Court noted that the impugned DRT order had indeed been passed without putting the borrower on notice, amounting to a breach of natural justice.
It held that the high court’s remand order could not be sustained in the manner it was passed. As a result, the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution stood revived before the high court.
The apex court requested the high court to decide the petition on its own merits “as early as possible and, subject to its convenience, preferably within six months.” It also fixed timelines for filing of affidavits to expedite the hearing.
That six-month window expired on February 24, prompting the post-hours hearing before Justice Vidyarthi.
While courts do sit beyond hours to complete urgent hearings, particularly in Supreme Court-expedited matters, it is uncommon for an order to explicitly cite hunger and fatigue as reasons for reserving judgment.
