Supreme Court Again Calls For Performance Evaluation Of High Court Judges, Says They Should Have 'Self-Management Mechanism'

The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated the need for guidelines on the performance evaluation of High Court judges, saying that legitimate expectations of the public must be met by the judiciary.

The Court also said that the judges need to have a "self-management system" so that files do not pile up, causing anxiety and leading to adjournments.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, while dealing with the issue of nearly three years' delay by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing verdicts in reserved criminal appeals, clarified that the Supreme Court was not proposing to act like a "school principal" over High Court Judges, but to ensure that there are some broad guidelines.

Justice Kant observed :

"Another thing we may suggest is - the performance evaluation of the judges. That's also a very big challenge. There are judges who work day and night, they are giving outstanding disposal. But there are 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 criminal appeal, we don't expect him to decide 50 cases. If a judge is able to decide 1 criminal appeal in a day, that itself is a very big achievement. But in a bail matter, if a judge says I will decide only [...] bail matter in a day, that is also something which requires introspection. So, what should be the performance evaluation, the parameters, guidelines? Our intention is not to act as a school principal...but there should be broad guidelines...judges should know what is the task before them...that this much we must deliver. This is what our institution...legitimate expectation of the public at large..."

Further, the Court emphasized that where only operative part of a judgment is pronounced, reasons ought to follow within 5 days of the pronouncement, as held in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat, unless the timelines are modified by the Supreme Court.

"In case of pronouncement of operative part, where reasons are to follow, we may emphasize that this Court in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State Of Gujarat has taken a view that reasons ought to be uploaded within 5 days of pronouncement of the operative part. 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 Court also notably commented that adjourning cases after hearing them sends a very dangerous and demoralizing message, and lamented that some judges have been branded for indulging in such things in the past.

"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 demoralizing message that will be sent. Some of the judges, in the past, here and there, have been unfortunately branded like that. So, one has to be very careful. We must try to deliver whatever possible to the best of ability and whatever capacity we have."

 Earlier also, the bench had expressed the inclination to examine the "performance outputs" of High Courts across the country and questioned certain High Court judges' practice of rising for tea/coffee breaks, while commenting that if the judges only take lunch breaks, there would be better performance and results.

Considering the larger issue of belated delivery of judgments, the Court had called for details from the High Courts of judgments which had not been pronounced in matters reserved before January 31, 2025. The scope of the information sought was extended to civil as well as criminal cases, and the High Courts were asked to provide data also with regard on dates of uploading of the judgments.

Today, based on the data supplied by the High Courts, Advocate Fauzia Shakil (Amicus) placed before the Supreme Court a tabular chart on the status of judgment delivery, while underlining some difficulties posed by the different formats in which data by the High Courts had been supplied.

Hearing her, Justice Kant suggested that a uniform format be prepared, in accordance with which the High Courts can provide information. The bench further directed that the High Courts shall modify their existing rules/formats to ensure that details regarding (i) date on which judgment was reserved (ii) date on which judgment was pronounced, and (iii) date on which judgement was uploaded, are clearly mentioned in the uploaded judgment.

Insofar as the Amicus pointed out that some High Court judges pronounce operative part of judgments, but thereafter the judgment is not uploaded or there's inordinate delay, the Court ordered that the revised formats of High Courts shall also have a column to specify whether the pronounced judgment comprises the operative part only or it is the full judgment.

Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha appeared for the respondents. When the bench sought his assistance in the above regard, he submitted that the same yardstick cannot apply to all judges, as disposal rate of judges deciding criminal appeals cannot be compared with that of judges dealing with bail matters. He also mentioned that 5 days' time for uploading of reasoned judgments after pronouncement of operative part can be "too less" in some cases, for instance in criminal appeals, as judges have to do a threadbare analysis.

Case Title: PILA PAHAN@ PEELA PAHAN AND ORS. Versus THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANR., W.P.(Crl.) No. 169/2025