Today, On 5th May, The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Jharkhand High Court for delaying verdicts in criminal cases and directed all High Courts to submit status reports, stating, “This cannot be allowed to happen in a judicial system.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday voiced its surprise that the Jharkhand High Court has not delivered verdicts in 67 criminal appeals after reserving judgment and directed all high courts to submit a report within a month on cases with pending judgments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh described the situation as “disturbing” and stated “its intention to establish mandatory guidelines on the matter.”
Also Read: Supreme Court Criticizes NHAI Over Delays in Filing Appeals: Calls for Introspection
As it requested reports from all high courts within four weeks on cases where judgment has been reserved on or before January 31, 2025, but a verdict has not been pronounced to date.
The bench said,
“This cannot be allowed to happen,”
Earlier, Following a Supreme Court criticise on April 23 for undue delays in delivering judgments after reservation, the Jharkhand High Court significantly increased its output, issuing judgments in over 75 criminal appeals within a single week (April 24 to May 2).
This sudden rise in activity is very different from the week before (April 15 to 23), when the High Court gave verdicts in only 16 criminal appeals. Criminal appeals give a person, who is found guilty by a lower court, a chance to ask the High Court to review their case and challenge the conviction or sentence.
Usually, such convicted people stay in jail while the High Court looks into their appeal. If the judgment is delayed, it keeps them in jail longer and also delays their chance to appeal further in the Supreme Court.
On April 23, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Kotiswar Singh addressed a plea from four murder convicts whose cases had been heard and reserved for judgment over three years prior.
The bench directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to submit a confidential status report by May 5, detailing judgments reserved two months prior or earlier, categorized by bench.
Between April 24 and May 2, the Jharkhand High Court delivered judgments in 75 criminal appeals, with 11 reserved for judgment in 2024 and the remainder in 2025. The oldest reserved case, dating back to September 30, 2024, an appeal from 2005 involving a rape accused resulted in an acquittal on April 28.
Also Read: Filing Appeals After Deadline| Supreme Court Imposes Rs.50,000 Fine on Odisha
Of the 75 verdicts, 19 criminal appeals had been reserved by benches led by Justice Ananda Sen. Justice Ananda Sen issued the most verdicts in a single day on April 28, deciding nine appeals. On April 24, the day after the Supreme Court’s criticise, the Justice Sen-headed bench delivered verdicts in eight appeals.
On April 28, a division bench of Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Arun Kumar Rai scheduled 15 appeals, including death sentence reference pleas, for judgment.
The bench delivered verdicts in 12 of these, postponing the pronouncement of two to May 1.
The Supreme Court petition filed by the four convicts also noted that, in addition to their cases, ten other convicts before the Jharkhand High Court were in a similar situation, with their appeals heard but judgments not pronounced “for approximately three years”.
In the case of the 10 other convicts, appeals filed between 2014-2019, judgments were reserved between January 2022 and June 2022, where judgments remain to be pronounced, even three years later. The convicts in these appeals have undergone incarceration ranging from 7 to 14 years. Cases of two petitioners before the Supreme court have been listed for orders on May 5.
Also Read: Delhi High Court Dismisses BSNL’s Appeal Against Rs 43.52 Crore Arbitral Award
Delay in pronouncing judgments has been a key area of concern in tackling the pendency of cases. In a 2001 ruling in Anil Rai versus the State of Bihar, Supreme court had issued guidelines requiring a mention of dates when a judgment is reserved and finally pronounced in the order for accountability.
The guidelines also state that “if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within six months, any of the parties of the said shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments, with adjudication of such application left to the Chief Justice.”
Case Title: PILA PAHAN@ PEELA PAHAN AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025