In a case involving a nearly three-year delay by the Jharkhand High Court in pronouncing verdicts in reserved criminal appeals, the Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over the broader issue of judicial delays and indicated its intent to examine the "performance outputs" of high courts across the country.

A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made sharp observations regarding courtroom efficiency, particularly questioning the practice of some High Court judges taking frequent tea and coffee breaks. “We would like to examine a very larger issue—what is the output of the High Courts? How much are we spending on the system? What is the actual output? What is the performance scale and the benchmark that should exist?” Justice Kant remarked.

While acknowledging the dedication of several judges, the Court did not shy away from highlighting lapses. “Some judges work extremely hard and make us proud, but there are others who, unfortunately, disappoint. We are hearing certain things that compel us to be frank and blunt. Frequent breaks—tea, coffee, this, that—ought to be minimized. Except for a lunch break, continuous work would lead to better performance and outcomes,” Justice Kant added.

The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by four convicts whose criminal appeals had been heard and reserved by the Jharkhand High Court over two to three years ago, but final judgments had not been delivered. Following the Supreme Court's intervention, the High Court recently acquitted three of the convicts and issued a split verdict in the case of the fourth. All four were subsequently ordered to be released from custody.

Reflecting on the delay, the Bench emphasized the need for timely delivery of judgments. “The timeline prescribed earlier by this Court for pronouncement of judgments must be strictly followed, and we propose to evolve mechanisms to ensure this,” Justice Kant said.

Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing for the petitioners, thanked the Court for its intervention and noted that the matter touched upon the core of personal liberty, as the petitioners might have been released three years earlier had the High Court delivered its verdicts in time. Justice Kant, expressing equal regret, said the Court was deeply disappointed by the lapse.

Notably, last week the Supreme Court had sought data from all High Courts on judgments that remain reserved and are yet to be pronounced in matters heard before January 31, 2025.

Case Title: Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 169/2025