Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over the delay in delivering judgments and directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a detailed report on cases where the courts reserved judgments on or before January 31, 2025, but have not pronounced them.
The bench, led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh, issued the order following a writ petition filed by four convicts.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The petitioners claimed that the Jharkhand High Court had reserved their criminal appeals for judgment but had not pronounced them for over 2-3 years.
The bench instructed the Registrar General to provide a report detailing the pending judgments in both criminal and civil matters, specifying whether a single bench or a division bench is hearing the cases.
Justice Surya Kant expressed his dismay, calling the delay in delivering judgments “very disturbing.” He further stated that the issue requires mandatory guidelines, saying, “It can’t be allowed to happen like this.”
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
During the hearing, Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing the petitioners, informed the court that after the Supreme Court issued notice in the case, the Jharkhand High Court disposed of several criminal appeals.
However, the petitioners’ appeals remain unresolved, with two of them listed for judgment on the same day.
The bench took note of a report from The Indian Express that highlighted how the Jharkhand High Court had disposed of 75 criminal appeals in a week following the Supreme Court’s notice.
The bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a list detailing the 75 cases and specifying the dates on which the court reserved the judgments.
The Supreme Court had previously issued guidelines to High Courts for the timely pronouncement of reserved judgments.
In the case of Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001), the Court set clear instructions for High Courts to ensure they pronounce judgments in appeals without unnecessary delays.
The four petitioners, who belong to the Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes communities, received life imprisonment sentences. Three were convicted of murder, and one was convicted of rape.
One of the convicts has been in jail for over 16 years, with the others serving sentences ranging from 11 to 14 years.
The petitioners argued that the delay in the pronouncement of judgments violates their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, including their right to a speedy trial.
They referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hussainara Khatoon (Supra), which recognized the right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21.
In their petition, the convicts also cited HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani, where the Supreme Court criticized the practice of reserving judgments for extended periods.
The petitioners argued that the non-pronouncement of judgments in their cases violates the principles of justice.
Furthermore, the petitioners pointed out that 10 other convicts in similar situations, whose appeals the court heard, are also waiting for judgments that the court has delayed for over three years.
Regarding the petition for suspension of sentence, the petitioners referred to the case of Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. and the In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, which noted that bail should be the rule for convicts who have served eight years of actual sentence.
The petitioners also mentioned their repeated efforts to seek redress, including representations to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, and other legal aid bodies. Despite these efforts, they stated that they received no response.