The Supreme Court stressed the need for a performance evaluation mechanism for High Court judges to ensure efficiency and accountability. The Bench also cautioned that repeated adjournments harm credibility and erode public trust in the judiciary.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday said that there is a strong need to create a performance evaluation system for judges of High Courts in order to ensure better efficiency and accountability.
A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh pointed out that while some judges work very hard and dispose of cases quickly, others are not able to deliver judgments with the same speed and efficiency. According to the Court, this creates an imbalance and affects the expectations of the public.
The Bench observed:
“Another thing we may suggest is the performance evaluation of judges. That is also a very big challenge. There are judges who work day and night, delivering outstanding disposals. But there are also judges who, unfortunately, are unable to deliver — there may be good reasons or bad reasons, we don’t know. That depends on circumstances. Suppose a judge is sitting in a criminal appeal; we don’t expect him to decide 50 cases. Our intention is not to act as a school principal and monitor everything, but there should be broad guidelines. Judges should know what the task before them is. This is the legitimate expectation of the public at large from our institution.”
The Court made it clear that its aim was not to control the judges but to provide general guidelines so that the judiciary functions effectively.
At the same time, the Court also strongly warned against the common practice of giving repeated adjournments in cases. It said that this practice damages the credibility of the justice delivery system and lowers the confidence of the litigants.
The Bench pointed out that some judges in the past had developed such a reputation, which sends a negative message to people waiting for justice.
The Court remarked:
“Every judge needs to have a self-management mechanism also, so that [cases] are not piled up in an anxiety to hear more and more. Adjournments are not the solution. If judges build up an image that you enter the Court, you argue, and you get adjournment, that is the most dangerous and most demoralising message that will be sent.”
This matter came up before the Court in connection with a plea filed by four life convicts from Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities.
ALSO READ: Delhi Court Extends Judicial Custody of Rajesh Khimji & Tehseen Syed in CM Attack Case
They had alleged that the Jharkhand High Court had reserved its judgment on their criminal appeals for more than two to three years but failed to pronounce any verdict.
After the intervention of the Supreme Court in May 2025, the Jharkhand High Court finally delivered judgments in those four appeals, which had been kept pending for almost three years.
However, the top court noted that the issue was not just about these four appeals but about the larger problem of long delays in pronouncing reserved judgments.
The Supreme Court then asked all High Courts to give details of cases where judgments were reserved before January 31, 2025, but had still not been delivered.
Amicus Curiae Fauzia Shakil submitted before the Court a tabular chart with the information collected from different High Courts.
She also pointed out that the data shared by the courts was not in uniform formats, which created confusion and difficulty in analysis.
Taking note of this, Justice Surya Kant suggested:
“Creating a standardised format to streamline the process of collecting and reporting such information.”
The Court further directed that all High Courts should change their rules and formats so that whenever a judgment is uploaded, it must clearly show three important dates — the date when the judgment was reserved, the date when it was pronounced, and the date when it was uploaded on the official website.
The Bench also repeated that if only the operative part of a judgment is announced, the full reasons must be provided without delay. It referred to the earlier case of Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat and said:
“The High Courts are therefore bound to follow this unless this Court, on account of some practical difficulties that High Courts might experience, deem it appropriate to revise the timelines from 5 days to 10 or 15 days (maximum).”
The Supreme Court has listed this matter for further hearing on November 10.
Case Title:
Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Delhi 2020 Riots Case
