The Supreme Court has pulled up the Jharkhand High Court for not pronouncing judgments long after reserving them. Three students, who had filed a case related to the cancellation of home guard recruitment in 2017, complained that their case was last heard on April 6, 2023, but no verdict has been given yet.
New Delhi – The Supreme Court has once again raised serious concerns about the Jharkhand High Court after three students approached the top court complaining that a verdict in their case—regarding home guard appointments—has not been delivered since 2023.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Grants Notional Promotion to Three Officers in Jharkhand Judicial Service
Senior advocate Nikhil Goel informed a Supreme Court bench led by Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that the students’ case was last heard on April 6, 2023, by a single judge of the Jharkhand High Court.
“A single-judge bench of the high court heard the matter last on April 6, 2023, and said orally that it was reserving it for orders but no judgement has been passed till now,” Goel told the bench.
The Supreme Court, while examining a report from the Registrar General of Jharkhand High Court—submitted in a separate case involving life convicts—found that details about pending civil cases were missing.
The bench stated that it seemed the Registrar General misunderstood the Supreme Court’s earlier direction dated May 5, which had clearly asked for information about all such pending cases.
“As a matter of fact, the registrar general was expected to send a report with respect to the civil matters also, as clearly directed by the May 5 order… Be that as it may, a comprehensive report with respect to all the civil matters reserved by different benches be furnished,” the bench ordered.
The apex court has now issued a notice to the Registrar General of Jharkhand High Court, instructing the official to submit a complete report listing all civil cases in which arguments have been heard but judgments are still pending, including the three petitioners’ writ petitions and others with similar issues. The matter will be heard again on May 23.
Goel further pointed out that the delay in the students’ case is not an isolated incident.
“There appears to be a pattern. Judgements are not being pronounced after reserving orders,” he said.
He reminded the court that during the May 5 hearing related to life convicts, it was noted that 11 single-judge matters were pending where orders had been reserved on various dates between July 25, 2024, and September 27, 2024.
“My case is of April 6, 2023, when the matter was last heard by the single judge,” Goel emphasised, arguing that the current report failed to mention older cases like theirs.
“The report of the registrar general shows nothing before 2024,” he said.
He added, “A specific information of all the criminal appeals and civil matters with further specification as to whether it was a division bench matter or a single bench matter was sought from the high court.”
The three petitioners, represented by advocate Vanya Gupta, are candidates who had qualified in a recruitment drive for over 1,000 home guard positions advertised in 2017. Although their names were in the merit list, the Jharkhand government later cancelled the recruitment. The students then filed a petition in the high court in 2021. Their case was heard and arguments concluded on April 6, 2023, but the judgement is still awaited.
Meanwhile, this issue echoes another recent case. On May 13, during a hearing on the pleas of life convicts, the Supreme Court sharply criticised the delay by the high court.
“High court judges were taking breaks ‘unnecessarily’,” the top court observed, even calling for performance audits of judges.
In that case, the life convicts were represented by advocate Fauzia Shakil, who told the Supreme Court that the Jharkhand High Court had reserved judgement in 2022 in their appeal against life imprisonment—but again, the verdict was delayed for over two years. Only after the Supreme Court intervened, were three of them eventually acquitted by the high court.
On May 5, while dealing with that case, the Supreme Court had broadened its focus and asked all High Courts across the country to submit details of all cases where judgements were reserved but not pronounced, even after arguments were completed.
The court stressed the urgency of the matter: “The issue raised in the case was of ‘paramount importance’ and ‘goes to the root of the criminal justice system’.”
It posted the next hearing for July.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
