BIKANER, Sept. 12 -- The Rajasthan high court has taken note of recurring delays in resolving litigations filed by the state government and has observed that it cannot act as "a mute spectator" to the problem and ordered the state to formulate a new litigation policy to place on record within two weeks. In a hearing on Tuesday, a division bench of justices Mahendar Kumar Goyal and Praveer Bhatnagar took note of procedural delays ranging from a few months to almost two years in a batch of 13 criminal leave-to-appeal petitions filed by the state against acquittals by lower courts, supported by what it termed "stock" explanations and sought to examine reasons for the delays in two weeks. The bench also examined a report by the state law department, which showed that a case file among the 13 in question arrived at a senior joint legal remembrancer's desk alongside 52 other case files on March 6, 2024, when a total of 720 files were already pending with the officer. The court said the report presented a "gloomy picture" of the machinery supporting the state litigation process. The court also noted the government's delay in formulating a proposed new litigation policy that the state offered as a solution to the ongoing problem during a hearing in February. The bench gave the state two weeks to place it on record and warned that the principal secretary (law)and principal secretary (finance) would have to appear personally to explain the delays if the government failed to do so. The high court has already expressed displeasure over the problem and rejected many state appeals this year over substantial delays. On July 14, a division bench of acting chief justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and justice Sanjeet Purohit rejected an appeal filed after a delay of 528 days (State of Rajasthan vs Phoola Ram). The appellants included the rural development and panchayati raj departments, the chief electoral officer of Zila Parishad, Bikaner, and the vikas adhikari at Loonkaransar. On May 7, a bench of justices Arun Monga and Sandeep Shah rejected the state's plea to condone a delay of over three years in a separate. The court had described the explanation as "totally mechanical" and said it lacked a specific, day-to-day account of the delay. The same bench later rejected another state appeal filed after a delay of 812 days. In State of Rajasthan vs Surendra, the state sought condonation of a 599-day delay. The court's order recorded how the matter moved through the government system- the certified copy was received in November 2023, legal opinion followed in December, a departmental proposal went to the State government in January 2025, the Litigation Committee considered it in May, approval came in June, an officer-in-charge was appointed and the appeal was eventually prepared in July-August 2025. The court nevertheless found the explanation "totally mechanical" and dismissed the appeal. In a circular issued on November 17, 2021, the state law department had noted "inordinate" delays in filing state appeals in violation of the State Litigation Policy-2018. The circular recorded that the high court had said it would not condone delays of over 100 days in state appeals and directed departments to accelerate the process at every stage. It called for regular monitoring, prompt appointment of officers-in-charge and accountability of officials responsible for delay.Where delay was attributable to government advocates, the matter was to be reported to the law department, it said. In another circular in April 2023, the department issued directions to expedite state appeals against commercial court decisions, again noting recurring delays....