The Supreme Court has raised concerns over inconsistent work ethics among High Court judges, stating, “Some judges work very hard, others take unnecessary coffee breaks,” and stressed the urgent need for a performance audit.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court addressed concerns regarding high court judges taking “unnecessary and frequent breaks”, calling for performance audits.
Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh noted that numerous complaints have been received about the conduct of high court judges, emphasizing the need to evaluate their expenditures versus their productivity.
Also Read: “Highly Objectionable”: Supreme Court Criticized High Court’s Remark On Widow, Make-Up
Justice Kant stated,
“There are some judges who work very hard but at the same time there are judges who are unnecessarily taking coffee breaks; this break or that break. What is for lunch hour? We are hearing a lot of complaints about the high court judges. This is a larger issue which needs to be looked into. What is the performance of the high court judges? How much we are spending and what is the output? It’s high time we do a performance audit,”
This discussion arose from a plea by four individuals who approached the Supreme Court, claiming that the Jharkhand High Court had reserved its decision on their criminal appeal against conviction and life sentences in 2022, yet had not pronounced the judgment.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing the petitioners, noted that following the Supreme Court’s intervention, the high court delivered its verdicts on May 5 and 6, leading to the acquittal of three individuals while the fourth case resulted in a split verdict, which was referred to the high court chief justice, granting bail.
Shakil highlighted that, despite the verdicts being announced a week prior, the acquitted individuals had not yet been released from jail, as the judgments did not specify the date of reservation.
The bench then instructed the Jharkhand government counsel to ensure their immediate release before lunch, scheduling a follow-up hearing for post-2 PM. When the matter resumed, the state counsel confirmed the release, attributing the delay to the absence of release orders from the trial courts.
Also Read: ANALYSIS| ‘How High Courts Should tackle Conflicting Judgments’: Supreme Court clarifies
Shakil remarked that the four individuals were “breathing fresh ai thanks to the Supreme Court’s involvement, lamenting that had the high court acted promptly, they could have been freed three years earlier.”
Justice Kant expressed sympathy for their ordeal, stating,
“We feel sorry for the suffering of these persons that due to the judicial system they had to remain in jail for such a long time.”
He hoped the court would be “frank and blunt” in addressing the judges’ output, especially as it relates to personal liberty.
The bench noted that the petitioners, Pila Pahan, Soma Badang, Satyanarayan Sahu, were convicted of murder and other charges by the trial court but later acquitted by the high court. Dharmeshwar Oraon, convicted of rape, was released on bail after a split verdict.
Also Read: Supreme Court Collegium Recommends 4 Madras High Court Judges for Permanent Appointment
The Supreme Court emphasized the critical nature of the issues raised, stating they “go to the root of the criminal justice system.” It linked this plea to a similar case concerning the Allahabad High Court, where information was requested about the judgment’s pronouncement and its upload date on the Supreme Court website.
The bench remarked that the concerns raised would necessitate a thorough analysis and mandatory guidelines to ensure that convicts and undertrials do not lose trust in the justice system.
It reiterated that the timeline established for pronouncing judgments must be adhered to, along with the proposed mechanisms.
The bench instructed the registry to gather data from high courts and scheduled the next hearing for July.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
