Supreme Court Seeks Report From All High Courts On Pending Judgments In Cases Reserved Before January 31, 2025

Expressing concerns over the delay in pronouncing judgments, the Supreme Court on Monday (May 5) directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report on cases where judgments are still not pronounced despite reserving them on or before January 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh passed the order as follows :

"The Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit a report with respect to all those cases where judgments were reserved on or before 31.01.2025 and where pronouncement is still awaited. Information must contain criminal and civil matters separately, with specification whether it's a single or division bench matter."

The bench passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by 4 convicts alleging that judgments on their criminal appeals, though reserved, have not been pronounced by the Jharkhand High Court despite lapse of 2-3 years.

Justice Surya Kant observed that the delay in pronouncing judgment was "very disturbing." "We will definitely like to lay down some mandatory guidelines. It can't be allowed to happen like this," he orally said.

As regards the present case, Advocate Fauzia Shakil, for the petitioners, told the bench that after the Court issued notice in the present matter, the Jharkhand High Court disposed of many criminal appeals. However, the petitioners' appeals are yet to be decided though two of them are listed for judgment today, she added.

The bench also took note of a report of The Indian Express that the Jharkhand High Court disposed of 75 criminal appeals in one week after the Supreme Cour issued notice in this matter. The bench directed the Registrar General of the High Court to furnish a list of the 75 criminal appeals where judgments have been pronounced, specifying the date on which the verdict was reserved.

Previously also, the Supreme Court has issued directions to the High Courts on the timely pronouncement of judgments in reserved matters. In Anil Rai vs State Of Bihar, the Supreme Court, way back in 2001, had issued a set of guidelines to the High Court.

Notably, the convicts belong to the Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes communities and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. While three were convicted for murder, one faced conviction for the charge of rape. Out of the four, one convict has been in jail for over 16 years, while the others have also undergone actual custody period of 11-14 years.

Previously, taking serious view of the matter, the Court called on the Registrar General of the High Court to submit a status report regarding the reserved judgments in a sealed cover. It also issued notice on applications preferred by the convicts for suspension of sentence, after it was submitted on their behalf that they can't apply for remission since judgments have been reserved by the High Court.

Background

As per averments made in the petition, the convicts are lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi. They had filed criminal appeals challenging their convictions before the High Court of Jharkhand in Ranchi. The judgments were reserved in 2022, but even till date, the High Court has not pronounced the decisions.

The petitioners aver that the non-pronouncement of the judgments violates their right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, a facet of which is the 'right to speedy trial'. "this Hon'ble Court in Hussainara Khatoon (Supra) has held that speedy trial is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. And further in Akhtari Bi (Supra) has held that appeal is an extension of trial. Therefore, the Petitioners have Article 21 rights and the right to speedy trial emanating Article 21 even in Appeal."

Citing HPA International v. Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani, they point out that the Supreme Court has lamented the practice of constitutional courts reserving judgments for long durations.

"this Hon'ble Court in Anil Rai (Supra) has held that despite there being no overt provision prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Code with respect to pronouncing of judgments in appeal, unlike the specific provision of section 353 as in case of trial, the judgments in appeal still have to be pronounced without delay, as, an appeal is part of the justice dispensation system", the plea states.

It is further alleged that there are 10 other convicts in the same situation, whose appeals have been heard, but judgments have not been pronounced for over three years (approx.).

With regard to the prayer for suspension of sentence, reference is made to Saudan Singh v. State of U.P. and In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, where it was observed that if a convict has undergone 8 years of actual sentence, then bail would be the rule in most cases.

It is also mentioned that the petitioners made representations before various authorities, including the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court, and legal aid bodies, as well as gave letters to officials who routinely visited the jail. But, no response was forthcoming.

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

Click Here To Read/Download Order