The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to examine a plea filed by 10 convicts, including six on death row, alleging that the Jharkhand High Court has failed to pronounce judgments on their appeals years after reserving them. The convicts, some of whom have been in custody for over 16 years, have invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, claiming violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued notice to the Jharkhand government, seeking its response on the serious allegation of prolonged judicial inaction.
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate Fauzia Shakil submitted that the High Court had reserved judgments on the convicts’ criminal appeals back in 2022 and 2023, following full hearings, but has failed to deliver the verdicts till date. Nine of the convicts are lodged at Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi, while one is in Dumka Central Jail.
Shakil urged the apex court to suspend the sentences of the convicts, citing previous Supreme Court rulings which treated inordinate delays in judgment delivery as grounds for interim relief. “This is a fit case to suspend the sentence,” she argued.
The petition stated that all 10 convicts were sentenced to either death or life imprisonment for serious offences by trial courts, and have already served between six and sixteen years in prison. The plea further noted that the same High Court judge had heard and reserved verdicts in all ten cases.
The convicts alleged that their repeated efforts—along with those of their families—to seek intervention from the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court had yielded no results. The plea cited the High Court’s own rules mandating that reserved judgments should be delivered within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments.
“This delay strikes at the root of the petitioners’ right to life and personal liberty,” the plea argued, emphasizing that justice delayed is effectively justice denied.
The issue also ties into broader judicial concerns. On May 5, the Supreme Court had already pulled up High Courts for similar delays and directed them to submit reports on all cases where verdicts had been reserved on or before January 31. Calling the situation “very disturbing,” the apex court had indicated it would lay down binding timelines for pronouncement of judgments.
