NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Monday termed as "very disturbing" the practice of certain high court judges "reserving judgments for eternity" in breach of litigants' fundamental right to speedy justice and asked registrars general of all 25 HCs to submit details of cases in which orders had been reserved before Jan 31 and verdicts were yet to be pronounced.
The SC's move had a dramatic fallout as Jharkhand HC, according to a petitioner's lawyer, delivered verdicts later in the day in two appeals where it had reserved judgements since 2022 and acquitted the convicts. The HC has scheduled final orders for Tuesday in two other cases where it had reserved verdicts long ago.
There are at least two judges, one each in Telangana HC and Gauhati HC, who have between them reserved judgments in hundreds of cases and are yet to deliver final orders.
SC bench seeks details of 75 appeals disposed of in a week by J'khand HC
Telangana HC's T Vinod Kumar, heading a division bench, has kept more than 50 judgments reserved. Sitting as a single judge, he has reserved verdicts in over 150 cases - 13 in 2020 and over 70 each in 2022 and 2023, SC sources told TOI based on a complaint circulated among senior SC judges including the CJI.
The SC order stemmed from a petition argued by advocate Fauzia Shakil, who informed the court that four lifers had filed appeals against their conviction between 2012 and 2018 in Jharkhand HC, which had not pronounced verdicts even three years after reserving judgments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which had called for details of such instances from the Jharkhand HC registrar general, expanded the scope and wanted to know the state of affairs in every HC.
"We would like to lay down some mandatory guidelines to expedite delivery of judgments. It cannot be allowed to go on like this (reserving judgments and forgetting about it)," Justice Kant said.
The Jharkhand HC registrar general's report, without mentioning the four appeals, said division benches had reserved judgments in as many as 56 matters between Jan 2022 and Dec 2024, but no final order had been passed yet.
Single judge benches had reserved orders in 11 cases between July-Sept 2024 in which verdicts were yet to come.
The court also referred to a newspaper report which said that Jharkhand high court had disposed of 75 appeals within a week of the apex court order of April 23 seeking details of four cases in which judgments were reserved without pronouncing judgments.
The bench sought details of the 75 appeals disposed of in a week and soft copies of the judgments. It also asked the high court to inform about the fate of the four appeals, which advocate Shakil had mentioned.
Expanding the ambit of adjudication from Jharkhand to all high courts, the bench asked registrars general of all 25 high courts to submit within four weeks reports on cases in which division benches and single judge benches had reserved verdicts before Jan 31 and were yet to pronounce verdicts.
However, it decided to hear the Jharkhand related issue on May 11 while asking the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority to take immediate steps to find out those who have not been able to appeal against conviction in Supreme Court because of the HC indefinitely reserving orders on their appeals.
The SC's move had a dramatic fallout as Jharkhand HC, according to a petitioner's lawyer, delivered verdicts later in the day in two appeals where it had reserved judgements since 2022 and acquitted the convicts. The HC has scheduled final orders for Tuesday in two other cases where it had reserved verdicts long ago.
There are at least two judges, one each in Telangana HC and Gauhati HC, who have between them reserved judgments in hundreds of cases and are yet to deliver final orders.
SC bench seeks details of 75 appeals disposed of in a week by J'khand HC
Telangana HC's T Vinod Kumar, heading a division bench, has kept more than 50 judgments reserved. Sitting as a single judge, he has reserved verdicts in over 150 cases - 13 in 2020 and over 70 each in 2022 and 2023, SC sources told TOI based on a complaint circulated among senior SC judges including the CJI.
The SC order stemmed from a petition argued by advocate Fauzia Shakil, who informed the court that four lifers had filed appeals against their conviction between 2012 and 2018 in Jharkhand HC, which had not pronounced verdicts even three years after reserving judgments.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, which had called for details of such instances from the Jharkhand HC registrar general, expanded the scope and wanted to know the state of affairs in every HC.
"We would like to lay down some mandatory guidelines to expedite delivery of judgments. It cannot be allowed to go on like this (reserving judgments and forgetting about it)," Justice Kant said.
The Jharkhand HC registrar general's report, without mentioning the four appeals, said division benches had reserved judgments in as many as 56 matters between Jan 2022 and Dec 2024, but no final order had been passed yet.
Single judge benches had reserved orders in 11 cases between July-Sept 2024 in which verdicts were yet to come.
The court also referred to a newspaper report which said that Jharkhand high court had disposed of 75 appeals within a week of the apex court order of April 23 seeking details of four cases in which judgments were reserved without pronouncing judgments.
The bench sought details of the 75 appeals disposed of in a week and soft copies of the judgments. It also asked the high court to inform about the fate of the four appeals, which advocate Shakil had mentioned.
Expanding the ambit of adjudication from Jharkhand to all high courts, the bench asked registrars general of all 25 high courts to submit within four weeks reports on cases in which division benches and single judge benches had reserved verdicts before Jan 31 and were yet to pronounce verdicts.
However, it decided to hear the Jharkhand related issue on May 11 while asking the Jharkhand Legal Services Authority to take immediate steps to find out those who have not been able to appeal against conviction in Supreme Court because of the HC indefinitely reserving orders on their appeals.
You may also like
Haryana govt announces monthly honorarium scheme for senior artists, art scholars
New poll shows 4 in 5 Brits think crime has worsened over past decade
EastEnders spoilers: Affair uncovered, Ross and Ravi showdown and Joel exposed
Met Gala 2025: Shah Rukh Khan brings the house down in black and gold. King Khan's royal look sends fans into frenzy
Emmerdale star teases Mackenzie's death as 'dangerous' John takes action
