The Supreme Court has taken serious note of inordinate delays in pronouncement of judgments by High Courts, particularly pointing to a nearly three-year delay by the Jharkhand High Court in deciding reserved criminal appeals. A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh expressed strong concern over such delays and indicated its intention to examine the “performance outputs” of High Courts across the country.
The observation came while hearing a petition filed by four convicts whose criminal appeals had been reserved by the Jharkhand High Court but remained undecided for over two years. Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the High Court recently pronounced its verdict—acquitting three of the convicts and delivering a split decision in the fourth case. However, all four were ordered to be released from custody.
During the hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court Bench emphasized the systemic implications of delayed justice, particularly when it affects personal liberty. Justice Surya Kant remarked:
“We would like to examine a very larger issue — what is the output of the High Courts? How much we are spending on the system, what is the actual output? What is the performance scale? What is the benchmark which should be there?”
The Bench also criticized the tendency of some High Court judges to take frequent tea and coffee breaks during court hours. “Some of the judges, we know, they work so hard, their commitment is something that we always feel proud [of]… but there are other judges who are unfortunately disappointing us,” Justice Kant stated. He added:
“They are usually getting up for tea break, coffee break, this break, that break… Why don’t they continuously work till [lunch]? Except that you need a lunch break. It will be better performance, better result also.”
While acknowledging the efforts of diligent judges, the Court suggested that a clear performance benchmark and accountability mechanism may need to be instituted to ensure judicial discipline and efficiency.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing the petitioners, thanked the Bench for its intervention, highlighting that the issue “struck at the root of personal liberty”, as the petitioners could have been released nearly three years ago if the judgments had been delivered on time. Justice Kant responded by expressing the Court’s own disappointment with the delay.
Last week, the same Bench had sought data from High Courts regarding all matters reserved before January 31, 2025, in which judgments were yet to be pronounced. Justice Kant reiterated that timelines previously laid down by the Supreme Court for delivering judgments must be followed strictly, and that the Court may evolve mechanisms to ensure compliance.
