Institute of Legal and Management Studies

In a matter pertaining to the delay of nearly 3 years by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing verdict in reserved criminal appeals, the Supreme Court yesterday expressed inclination to examine the "performance outputs" of High Courts across the country.

The Court also 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.

"We would like to examine a very larger issue that what is the output of the High Courts? How much we are spending on the system, what is the actual output? What is the performance scale? What is the benchmark which should be there? Some of the judges, we know, they work so hard, their commitment is something that we always feel proud...but there are other judges who are unfortunately disappointing us...there are certain things we are hearing and maybe this matter we would like to be very frank and blunt to deal with some of the avoidable issues which are unnecessarily inviting decision in terms of functioning of High Courts...they are usually getting up for tea break, coffee break, this break, that break...why don't they continuously work till...? Except that you need a lunch break. It will be better performance, better result also", observed Justice Surya Kant.

A bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with a petition filed by 4 convicts, as judgments on their criminal appeals were heard and reserved by the High Court about 2-3 years back, but the orders remained to be pronounced.

Yesterday, it came forth that after the top Court's intervention, the High Court acquitted 3 of the convicts and delivered a split verdict in case of the 4th. Albeit, all 4 were ordered to be released from custody.

Considering the above developments, the bench led by Justice Kant turned its focus onto the larger issue raised by the case - that is, belated delivery of judgments. "The timeline prescribed earlier by this Court for pronouncement of judgments will have to be adhered to, alongwith the mechanisms we propose to [evolve]", the judge said.

After the order was dictated, Advocate Fauzia Shakil (for petitioners) thanked the Court for its indulgence. In passing, she also said that the matter struck at the root of personal liberty, as the petitioners could have come out of jail 3 years back (had the High Court pronounced the judgments timely). Equally regretful, Justice Kant conveyed that the bench was also disappointed by what transpired.

Last week, in the same case, the Court had called for details from the High Courts of judgments which have not been pronounced in matters which were reserved before January 31, 2025.

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