SC Criticises Jharkhand HC for Delayed Verdicts: The Supreme Court of India has expressed grave concern over a massive backlog in the Jharkhand High Court, where 67 criminal appeals were argued and judgements were reserved but never delivered. These include 56 division bench cases and 11 by single benches. In some cases, judgements have remained pending for over two years, leading to what the apex court has deemed a clear denial of justice.
Headed by Justice Surya Kant, the SC bench emphasised that this kind of delay is in direct violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, inherently including the right to a speedy trial. The Court has demanded a comprehensive report not only from the Jharkhand High Court but also from all High Courts across the country, signalling a likely overhaul in judicial timelines.
✅ SC Criticises Jharkhand HC Points to Remember:
-
The Supreme Court criticised delays in 67 criminal appeals in Jharkhand HC.
-
56 cases were from a division bench, and 11 from a single bench.
-
SC may soon issue mandatory guidelines for timely judgements.
-
Article 21 is the constitutional basis for the right to speedy justice.
-
75 verdicts were only passed after SC intervention.
-
The case underlines systemic inertia within judiciary processes.
🏛️ Why Article 21 Matters in Judicial Delays
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution reads:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.”
In the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Judicial delays not only hurt the accused, who may remain in custody indefinitely, but also deny justice to victims awaiting closure.
In the Jharkhand High Court case, the implications are severe:
-
Convicts might lose opportunities for remission or parole.
-
Innocents awaiting verdicts suffer prolonged uncertainty.
-
Public faith in the judiciary erodes.
⚙️ Systemic Issues Highlighted
The issue in Jharkhand isn’t an isolated case—it points to chronic inefficiencies within India’s judicial framework:
Key Issues:
-
Manpower Shortage: Vacant posts of judges and clerks.
-
Lack of Judicial Accountability: No tracking mechanism for pending reserved judgements.
-
Administrative Lapses: Poor case management and outdated court practices.
-
Case Overload: Indian courts are overwhelmed with pending cases—over 4.5 crore as of 2025.
A report by DAKSH and studies from Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy repeatedly show that judgement delays are rarely due to complex legal reasoning and mostly because of poor time management and oversight.
🛠️ Proposed Judicial Reforms by SC
In response, the Supreme Court is contemplating the following reforms:
-
Time-bound Guidelines: Judges must deliver reserved judgements within 3-6 months.
-
Quarterly Reporting: HCs to publish data on pending verdicts.
-
Internal Audits: Set up mechanisms to review delay reasons.
-
Technology Integration: E-tracking systems for real-time status of cases.
-
Disciplinary Oversight: Accountability measures for non-compliance.
If implemented, these steps could revolutionise how the Indian judiciary functions.
External (DoFollow) Links:
