Use leaves to clear verdict backlog: SC to Jharkhand HC judges

THe sublime margaret court on fri advised book of judges of the Jharkhand heights court to take their sanctioned leave, not for rest, but to clear a growing backlog of reserved judgments.The advice came after a bench led by justice Surya Kant discovered that in dozens of cases, verdicts had been reserved for months, and in some instances more than a year, without being pronounced.“Ask the judges to take their sanctioned leave for 10 to 12 weeks and write judgments…Nowadays judges have enough leaves left with them. Just get rid of these cases. People need judgments…they are not concerned about jurisprudence or anything else. Give a reasoned order on whether relief is denied or allowed,” observed the bench, also comprising justice Joymalya Bagchi.The bench made the observation while hearing a batch of petitions concerning delays in the high court’s decisions. Looking at the figures, the bench noted that judgments in 61 cases were still pending. Addressing senior advocate Ajit Sinha, who was representing the Jharkhand high court, the top court remarked that the situation called for urgent and practical measures.Sinha responded that the statistics being discussed were from January 31 and that the high court had delivered some judgments since then. Nevertheless, the court emphasised that 61 was still a significant number and insisted that the suggestion be conveyed directly to the chief justice of the high court. “It is our request. Just do it. Convey our suggestion to the high court’s chief justice,” the court said.The bench’s written order went a step further, directing that the judges of the high court should take immediate steps to address the backlog. “The high court judges shall take immediate steps. Post the matter for further consideration after three months. Let needful be done by that time,” stated the order.The unusual direction from the Supreme Court emerged from petitions filed by students from remote tribal areas of Jharkhand. These petitioners had complained that the high court had failed to pronounce judgments since 2023 in cases involving the recruitment of home guards.The dispute traced back to 2017 when the Jharkhand government advertised over 1,000 home guard posts. Several candidates, whose names had appeared on the merit list, challenged the state government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process. The high court heard their case and reserved its verdict on April 6, 2023. More than a year later, that verdict has still not been delivered, prompting the aggrieved candidates to seek relief from the Supreme Court.Sinha informed the bench on Friday that the high court had now delivered some orders in the students’ case, but the court noted that the broader issue of delayed judgments remains unresolved. The petitioners in the recruitment case, represented by advocate Vanya Gupta, argue that their careers have been left in limbo for years due to the lack of a final verdict. Their petition details how the recruitment process, which began in 2017, was later cancelled by the government, and has been mired in litigation ever since. After years of hearings, the case was reserved for judgment in April 2023, but the decision never came.The Jharkhand high court has been under the Supreme Court’s scrutiny for failing to pronounce verdicts in serious criminal matters, including appeals in death penalty and life imprisonment cases. On May 16 this year, the Supreme Court ordered the high court to file a status report listing all cases, civil and criminal, where judgments had been reserved on or before January 31, 2024. That order was part of a growing effort by the apex court to ensure that justice is not indefinitely delayed after hearings are completed.In fact, this is not the first time the Supreme Court has had to step in. On July 14, in a separate matter involving death row convicts, the court issued notices to the high court over delays in deciding their appeals. Within a week of that intervention, the high court delivered verdicts in 10 such cases, six of them involving prisoners on death row. In another hearing on May 13, while dealing with pleas from life convicts, the Supreme Court criticised judges for taking breaks “unnecessarily” and even suggested that performance audits might be required to address inefficiency.