The Supreme Court expressed grave concern on Thursday over the functioning of several high courts, particularly Allahabad High Court, which is the largest in the country.

The court noted that the filing and listing of cases had collapsed, leaving litigants uncertain about when their matters would be heard.

"Some high courts are worrisome in their functioning. Allahabad High Court being the largest in the country is facing serious issues with the filing and listing of cases…. Unfortunately, filing has collapsed, listings have collapsed. Nobody knows which matter will be listed," Justice Surya Kant, heading a bench, orally observed.

The bench, which included Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, made the observations while directing authorities in Uttar Pradesh and legislator Abbas Ansari to maintain status quo on a disputed property in Jiamau village of Lucknow.

Ansari claims the property is part of his family’s land, but the state has identified it as "evacuee property" — land left behind by those who migrated to Pakistan after Partition in 1947 and subsequently coming under the custody of the government of India. The government now wants to develop the land for the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, a housing scheme.

Ansari had filed an application claiming that his case, despite being listed multiple times, had not been heard in Allahabad High Court. This was in violation of an earlier Supreme Court order, issued on October 21, 2024, which had instructed the high court to decide the matter by November 11, 2024.

The case concerns whether Ansari should be granted interim protection against the construction of residential flats on the disputed land until the final ownership and title of the property are decided.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ansari, who is also the son of alleged gangster Mukhtar Abbas Ansari, on Thursday told the bench that while other co-owners of the land had been given interim protection by the high court, no such relief had been offered to his client.

He made certain critical inferences to the high court, but the bench headed by Justice Kant refrained from making any comment on such inferences.

The bench, however, issued the following written order.

"The instant application has been moved in furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2014 passed by this court.... Disposed of after taking notice of the fact that the writ petition… filed by the petitioner along with his brother… was pending before the high court and was ordered to be listed before a division bench along with other similar matters.

"It was in this backdrop that we requested the division bench of the high court to take up the application for interim stay moved by the petitioner and decide the same at the earliest and in any case on 04.11.2024 when the matter was listed," it said.

The bench further said: "The instant application has been moved, inter alia, alleging that after the order passed by this court, the writ petition has been listed on several occasions, but no effective hearing has taken place. Consequently, no interim protection has been granted to the petitioner, though all other similarly situated writ petitioners have been protected against dispossession/demolition/fresh construction at the disputed site.

"Since we have not issued notice and have also not obtained a report from the registry of the high court, we are not inclined to express any opinion as to what were the circumstances and why the petitioner’s writ petition could not be taken up for hearing by the bench, though it was listed from time to time."

The apex court added: "We dispose of this miscellaneous application with a direction to the authorities as well as the petitioner to maintain status quo at the site till the matter is heard by the high court.... We are still hopeful that the matter shall be listed before the appropriate bench of the high court at the earliest.”