Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Noting that over 7.24 lakh criminal appeals are pending across the High Courts in the country, the Supreme Court has requested all High Courts to consider a series of suggestions to address the backlog.

“As of 22nd March, 2025, the total pendency of criminal appeals (appeals against conviction and acquittal) is 7,24,192…Therefore, there is a huge problem faced by all the High Courts”, the Court observed.

The Court expressly endorsed several of the suggestions including case record digitization, procedural rule amendments for automatic requisitioning of trial records once notice is issued in appeals, use of its AI translation tool SUAS for translating court documents, and creation of the post of Registrar (Court and Case Management) in all High Courts to streamline case readiness. It endorsed the amici curiae's suggestion that High Courts with multiple benches consider hearing appeals via video conferencing to help benches with lower pendency assist the principal seat.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a suo motu petition concerning policy strategy for the grant of bail to convicts whose appeals are pending for long periods.

The Court also reiterated that the High Courts should ordinarily suspend sentence in cases of fixed-term sentence. It referred to the judgments in Bhagwan Rama Shinde Gosai v. State of Gujarat (1999), NCB v. Lakhwinder Singh (2025), and Atul alias Ashutosh v. State of MP (2024).

“This court has consistently laid down that when there is a fixed period of sentence, normally the power of suspension of sentence under section 389 of CrPC should be exercised liberally unless there are exceptional circumstances brought on record. The HCs are bound by the law laid down by this court on this behalf. This is significant in the context of the fact that the figures show that in some of the HCs, in case of large number of appeals against conviction that accused have been denied bail”, the Court stated.

The Court had earlier directed all High Courts to submit comprehensive data on the pendency of criminal appeals, broken down by bench composition and the bail status of the accused

According to the data provided, as of March 22, 2025, the total pendency of criminal appeals—both against conviction and acquittal—stood at 7,24,192. The Allahabad High Court accounted for the highest share with 2.77 lakh pending appeals, followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court with 1.15 lakh pending appeals. Even some smaller High Courts showed high pendency, the Court noted.

The Patna High Court had 44,664 pending appeals, Punjab and Haryana High Court had 79,326, Rajasthan High Court had 56,455, and the Bombay High Court had 28,257 pending appeals. Chhattisgarh, a smaller state, had more than 18,000 pending appeals, the Court noted.

The Court asked all High Courts to consider various suggestions given by amici curiae senior advocates Liz Matthew and Gaurav Agarwal as well as the Supreme Court Committee for Model Case Flow Management Rules for the High Courts to reduce backlog.

The Court noted that a Model Action Plan for Reduction of Arrears in High Courts has been prepared by the Supreme Court Committee for Model Case Flow Management Rules for the High Courts. This model action plan has been approved by the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side and forwarded to all the High Courts. The Court asked all High Courts to adopt the model action plan with suitable modifications.

The Court noted that the Committee has recommended a one-time physical verification of cases pending before High Courts and trial courts to ensure data accuracy. This includes correcting data entries on High Court websites and the National Judicial Data Grid.

The model action plan includes various components, including the preparation of a list of targeted criminal appeals. The Court noted that the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) has also undertaken the preparation of baseline reports on case management, including one concerning the High Courts and District Judiciary for the year 2024. The Court directed the Registrar in charge of NCMS to forward a copy of this report to all High Courts.

The Court endorsed the amici curiae's suggestion that High Courts with multiple benches should consider hearing appeals via video conferencing. This would help benches with lower pendency assist the principal seat in disposing of more cases. “We also accept suggestion that in case of HCs with multiple benches the HCs on the administrative side are to examine possibility of permitting hearing appeals through VC so that if principal seat of an HC has more pendency than other benches, disposal can be improved.”

The amici also suggested the rationalisation of rosters so that dedicated benches could be assigned criminal appeals, without other types of cases being listed before them. The Court requested the Chief Justices of all High Courts to examine these suggestions.

The Court noted that the issue of pendency also affects the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution. While recognising that granting adjournments is within the discretion of the court, the Supreme Court emphasised that in cases of non-cooperation by advocates for accused persons, High Courts may appoint legal aid lawyers in accordance with the judgment in Bani Singh v. State of UP.

The Court endorsed the suggestion to create the post of Registrar (Court and Case Management) in all High Courts whose duty will be “to ensure that the case files are maintained and ready for final hearing and served well in advance to the concerned counsel so that the procedural compliances are managed within time.”

“There are very important suggestions under the heading “Registry level due diligence”. We recommend those suggestions for acceptance of the HCs and especially the suggestion to create post of Registrar (court and case management)”, the Court said.

The Court also asked the High Court's to consider the suggestion that the assignment of criminal matters to judges with domain expertise, to ensure speedier disposal of appeals.

The amicus curiae also pointed out delays in the hearing of criminal appeals due to slow transmission of case records and deposition records from trial courts. The Court said that the digitisation of records should begin with the Sessions Courts and special courts under various statutes. For translations, it noted that an AI tool Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) developed by the Supreme Court for translating judgments has been made available to High Courts and can also be used for translating trial court records. Only the vetting of translations would remain.

The Court recommended that High Courts amend their procedural rules to ensure that, upon issuance of notice in a criminal appeal, the soft copy of the trial court record is automatically called by the registry, to prevent delays.

“It will be ideal if all the HCs amend the procedural rules and provide that as soon as notice issued in criminal appeal against conviction or acquittal, soft copy of the record of trial court is automatically called upon by the registry so that hearing is not delayed. Therefore we recommend to the High Courts acceptance of suggestions made in this behalf in the baseline report of NCMS as well as the report submitted by the learned amicus curiae”, the Court stated.

The Court emphasised that priority must be given to the hearing of appeals where the accused are in jail. At the same time, a balance should be maintained by giving priority to appeals against conviction in cases where the accused are out on bail, where the offence is of serious nature, or where the accused are of advanced age. Appeals in which the trial court has imposed a life sentence and the accused is on bail should also be given priority.

Apart from the aforementioned suggestions, the Amici also suggested appointment of ad hoc judges to tackle criminal appeal pendency. However, the Court did not deal with it at this stage, as the matter has already been taken up by the Chief Justice of India with the government.

The Court requested the High Courts to consider this order, the NCMS baseline report, the model action plan, and the suggestions from the amicus curiae, and to make suitable changes to their procedural rules or practice guidelines.

It clarified that while High Courts are constitutional courts and the Supreme Court cannot prescribe the exact form of the action plans, the High Courts are requested to formulate and place on record their action plans within four months.

The Court stated that these action plans could then be shared with all High Courts to help them adopt best practices from each other.

“We are conscious of the fact that the High Courts are Constitutional Courts. Therefore, we are leaving it to the High Courts to work on all these aspects in the light of what we have expressed and come out with action plans…We are conscious of the fact that we cannot direct High Courts to have action plans in a particular manner. But if action plans are placed on record, the same can be provided to every High Court so that the High Courts follow best practices adopted by other High Courts. The endeavour of this exercise undertaken by this court is to ensure that dependency of criminal appeals is reduced to the minimum”, the Court stated.

Also from the order - Centre Must Clear Collegium Recommendations Soon : Supreme Court Raises Alarm Over High Court Vacancies

Case no. – SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Case Title – In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail