Supreme Court Seeks Answers: Why Are Reserved Judgments Still Awaited Since Jan 2025?

In a decisive move to address the inordinate delays in pronouncing judgments, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts across the country to submit detailed reports on cases where verdicts have been reserved but not delivered, despite being heard on or before January 31, 2025.

A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh issued the direction while hearing a writ petition filed by four convicts, who alleged that despite their criminal appeals being heard and reserved by the Jharkhand High Court nearly three years ago, the judgments remain undelivered. The bench termed the delay “very disturbing” and strongly hinted at laying down mandatory guidelines to curb such judicial inertia.

“It can’t be allowed to happen like this,” Justice Kant remarked during the proceedings.

The apex court ordered that the High Courts must distinguish between civil and criminal matters in their reports, also clarifying whether they pertain to a single or division bench.

The matter gained urgency after Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for the petitioners, informed the court that while the Jharkhand High Court disposed of several criminal appeals following the Supreme Court's notice in the case, her clients’ appeals remained pending. Intriguingly, two of the petitioners’ appeals were listed for judgment on the very day of the hearing.

The bench also took note of a report published by The Indian Express, which revealed that the Jharkhand High Court had disposed of 75 criminal appeals in just one week after the top court intervened. The SC has now directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to submit a list of those 75 appeals, clearly stating when the judgments were reserved and when they were eventually pronounced.

Background and Human Angle

The four petitioners—belonging to Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes—are serving life sentences, with convictions ranging from murder to rape. One of them has already spent over 16 years in jail, while the others have been incarcerated for 11 to 14 years. They are currently lodged at Birsa Munda Central Jail in Ranchi and filed appeals in the Jharkhand High Court back in 2022. Yet, justice remains elusive.

Their petition invokes Article 21 of the Constitution—right to life and personal liberty—arguing that delayed pronouncement violates the right to speedy trial, a constitutional guarantee upheld in landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon and Akhtari Bi.

The plea also highlights previous apex court judgments—particularly Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001)—which emphasized timely delivery of verdicts, even in the absence of specific procedural provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Adding to the urgency, the petitioners cited the Saudan Singh and In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail rulings, which stated that convicts who have completed eight years of actual imprisonment should be granted bail in most cases. However, in the absence of a final judgment on their appeals, even remission or bail becomes a legal dead end.

Despite making multiple representations to the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court, and legal aid bodies, the convicts claim they received no response. Some even handed letters to visiting officials, pleading for intervention—but to no avail.

What’s Next?

The Supreme Court has not only sought a detailed report on the pending judgments from all High Courts but also appears determined to issue binding procedural norms to ensure timely delivery of justice.

As the judiciary itself comes under scrutiny for delays that directly impact the lives and liberties of individuals, this case could serve as a landmark in pushing judicial accountability and upholding constitutional guarantees.

This isn’t just a procedural lapse—it’s a human rights concern.

Also Read: Supreme Court Concludes Hearing on Waqf Act, Verdict Deferred