Concerned by repeated delays in the delivery of judgments after hearings are concluded, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to file detailed reports on matters in which judgments were reserved on or before January 31, 2025, but remain undecided.
The order came in response to a writ petition filed by four convicts, who complained that despite their criminal appeals being heard by the Jharkhand High Court over two years ago, the judgments have still not been pronounced.
The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order directing:
“The Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report with respect to all those cases where judgments were reserved on or before 31.01.2025 and where pronouncement is still awaited. Information must contain criminal and civil matters separately, with specification whether it’s a single or division bench matter.”
Delay in Verdicts Alarms Supreme Court
While hearing the matter, Justice Surya Kant remarked that such prolonged delays were “very disturbing” and stressed the need for judicial accountability.
“We will definitely like to lay down some mandatory guidelines. It can’t be allowed to happen like this,” he observed during the hearing.
Advocate Fouzia Shakil, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Jharkhand High Court had started pronouncing judgments in several appeals only after the Supreme Court issued notice in the case. However, she pointed out that the appeals filed by her clients remain pending, even though two of them were listed for judgment on Monday.
SC Cites News Report on Sudden Surge in Judgments
The Court also referred to a report by The Indian Express, which noted that the Jharkhand High Court had delivered 75 judgments in criminal appeals within one week following the Supreme Court’s notice. Taking note of this, the Bench directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to furnish a list of these cases, mentioning both the date of reservation and the date of pronouncement for each judgment.
Background: Appeals Pending Since 2022
The petitioners, all convicts serving life sentences in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, belong to Scheduled Tribe and OBC communities. Three were convicted of murder, while one was convicted of rape. One petitioner has already spent over 16 years in custody, while the others have been incarcerated for 11–14 years.
Their appeals against conviction were filed before the Jharkhand High Court in 2022, and the Court had reserved judgment. However, no verdict was delivered despite the passage of more than two years.
Violation of Article 21: Right to Speedy Appeal
The petition invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the failure to pronounce judgments in a timely manner violates the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to a speedy trial and appeal.
The plea relied on several Supreme Court decisions:
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar – recognising speedy trial as a constitutional right.
- Akhtari Bi v. State of M.P. – stating that delay in appeals can also violate Article 21.
- Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) – where the Court had issued guidelines for timely pronouncement of reserved judgments.
- HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani – criticising constitutional courts for inordinate delays in writing judgments.
Suspension of Sentence Sought
The petition also seeks suspension of sentence, arguing that the prolonged pendency of appeals makes it impossible for the convicts to seek remission, thereby further prejudicing their rights.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. and In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, the petitioners stated that where a convict has served over eight years in prison, bail should ordinarily be granted.
The Court had earlier directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to submit a sealed report on the status of pending reserved judgments and issued notice on the application for suspension of sentence.
