New Delhi, May 30 -- The Supreme Court on Friday issued a sweeping set of binding directions to all high courts across the country, mandating that bail applications be decided on the same day or, at the latest, within 24 hours of hearing, while also fixing a three-month outer limit to pronounce reserved judgments. The bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi laid down an extensive framework to institutionalise transparency, accountability and timelines in judicial functioning, holding that intervention by the apex court had become necessary "for complete justice to the parties". The ruling came in proceedings arising out of prolonged delays in pronouncement of judgments by several high courts, particularly in criminal appeals involving life convicts who continued to remain in custody even after hearings had concluded and judgments had been reserved for years together. Pronouncing the judgment, CJI Kant said the guidelines would take effect immediately and directed registrar generals of all high courts to place the framework before their respective chief justices for implementation. "The high courts shall pronounce the judgment within a maximum period of three months from the date of reserving," directed the court, while simultaneously putting in place a cascading accountability mechanism in case the timeline is breached. Under the directions, if a reserved judgment is not delivered within three months, the matter must automatically be placed before the chief justice of the high court within two weeks. If the judgment is still not pronounced within the following two weeks, the chief justice may reassign the case to another bench for fresh hearing. In a major reform concerning personal liberty, the bench directed that bail applications should ordinarily be heard, decided and uploaded on the same day. If the order is reserved, it must be pronounced on the following day and uploaded immediately thereafter. The court further mandated that orders granting bail or suspending sentence must be communicated to jail and other authorities "as soon as pronounced", with undertrials or convicts to be released preferably on the same day or, at the latest, the next day. Recognising the widespread problem of delays in uploading detailed judgments even after operative orders are pronounced, the bench ruled that where urgent relief is required, courts may pronounce the operative portion first, but the reasoned judgment must be uploaded within seven days and, in exceptional situations involving practical difficulties, within a maximum of 15 days. The court specifically identified matters concerning demolition, eviction, admissions to educational institutions and bail as categories where urgent operative directions may become necessary. The bench also made it mandatory for all reasoned judgments pronounced in open court to be uploaded on the high court website within 24 hours. In another significant transparency measure, the court directed that high court websites must reflect the date on which judgment was reserved immediately after conclusion of arguments. If only the operative part is delivered, the case status must specifically indicate that the detailed reasons are awaited. Automated emails and messages are also to be generated for advocates informing them when judgments are uploaded. To monitor pendency, the court directed that at the end of every month, automated emails containing details of all reserved judgments pending beyond the prescribed timeline must be sent to the concerned bench as well as the chief justice of the high court. The judgment additionally encouraged circulation among judges of cases in which judgments have remained pending for more than two months. The apex court also created enforceable remedies for litigants affected by delayed judgments. It held that if a judgment is not pronounced within three months from reserving, parties would be entitled to file an application seeking early pronouncement, which must be listed before the concerned bench within two working days excluding holidays. Further, if the judgment remains pending even after three months plus one additional month, litigants may seek transfer of the matter to another bench for fresh hearing....