The Supreme Court has directed Jharkhand High Court judges to take sanctioned leave of 10-12 weeks to write long-pending judgments. This move aims to clear backlogs and deliver timely justice to litigants waiting for verdicts.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has once again expressed its strong dissatisfaction with the Jharkhand High Court for delaying the delivery of judgments in cases where hearings had already been completed a long time ago.
On Friday, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, told Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha, who represented the Jharkhand High Court, that the judges involved should take sanctioned leave to write their pending judgments.
The bench said,
“There are 61 cases pending. Ask Jharkhand HC judges to take their sanctioned leaves for 10-12 weeks and write the judgments… Just get rid of these cases. People need judgments, they are not concerned about jurisprudence or something else. Give a reasoned order on whether relief is denied or allowed.”
The Supreme Court also asked the Senior Advocate to pass on this suggestion to the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court. The matter was being heard in connection with petitions filed by students from tribal areas in Jharkhand.
These students had moved the High Court after the state government cancelled recruitment for more than 1,000 posts of home guards. Though the hearings were completed in 2023, the High Court had not yet pronounced its judgment.
The students’ names appeared on the rank list, but the delay in the judgment was causing uncertainty. However, Senior Advocate Sinha informed the Supreme Court that the High Court had, in fact, pronounced orders in the students’ case.
This incident is part of a continuing series of complaints brought before the Supreme Court since April 2025 about the Jharkhand High Court delaying verdicts in many matters where hearings were already completed years ago.
Earlier, on April 23, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant had taken up a similar plea filed by four convicts. These convicts complained that their appeals had been heard a couple of years back, but the judgments were still not pronounced.
In that hearing, the Supreme Court
“directed” the “Registrar General of the High Court of Jharkhand… to file a status report in sealed cover in respect of all the reserved judgments, which are more than two months ago,” including details “Bench-wise.”
Following the Supreme Court’s order, the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court submitted a report stating that 56 cases were pending with judgments reserved but not yet pronounced.
Also Read: Filing Appeals After Deadline| Supreme Court Imposes Rs.50,000 Fine on Odisha
Reviewing this report, the Supreme Court noted that the appeal of the four convicts was missing from the list, which raised suspicions that the actual number of pending judgments might be even higher.
The Supreme Court observed,
“The report reveals that there are 56 matters, including some Criminal Appeals, where a learned Division Bench of the High Court has finally heard the matters on different dates ranging from 04.01.2022 till 16.12.2024 but the final pronouncements are still awaited. There are 11 Single Bench matters also before another Hon’ble Judge where the judgments are reserved on different dates between 25.07.2024 to 27.09.2024.”
Another petition was filed by 10 convicts, including six who were on death row. They said their appeals were heard in 2022 and 2023, but the judgments were still reserved and not pronounced. It was discovered that eight of these cases were not included in the High Court Registrar’s report.
Upon further investigation, it was found that these judgments had been reserved by two-judge benches led by Justice Rangon Mukhopadhyay. Seven of these were reserved in 2022, and one in 2023.
The case of the four convicts that prompted the Supreme Court’s April 23 order was also reserved by a two-judge bench under Justice Mukhopadhyay.
Following the Supreme Court’s April 23 order, The Indian Express reported on May 5, 2025, that the Jharkhand High Court had listed and pronounced judgments in more than 75 criminal appeals in just one week.
The Supreme Court took note of this report and directed that it “be kept on record.” On July 21, 2025, the Supreme Court was informed that the High Court had delivered verdicts in the cases of the 10 convicts as well.
This series of events highlights the Supreme Court’s firm stance on the timely delivery of justice and its insistence that High Courts must avoid sitting on reserved judgments for long periods.
The Supreme Court clearly conveyed that people are entitled to timely decisions and do not care about technicalities or delays in jurisprudence.
Also Read: Supreme Court Criticizes NHAI Over Delays in Filing Appeals: Calls for Introspection
As the bench said,
“Just get rid of these cases. People need judgments, they are not concerned about jurisprudence or something else. Give a reasoned order on whether relief is denied or allowed.”
The Supreme Court’s repeated instructions and the subsequent swift actions by the Jharkhand High Court also send a clear message to other courts in the country about the importance of disposing of cases promptly once hearings are completed, ensuring that justice is not delayed or denied.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Pending Judgments
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
