Supreme Court Expresses Shock Over Jharkhand HC Judge's Two-Year Verdict Delay
The Supreme Court of India has strongly criticized a Jharkhand High Court judge for keeping a verdict reserved in a writ petition for an astonishing two years. The judge, Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay, orally pronounced the judgment on December 4, 2023, only after the Supreme Court intervened and termed the delay as "shocking". However, even after two months have passed since the oral pronouncement, there is no sign of the written judgment being made available.
Written Judgment Remains Unavailable Despite Oral Pronouncement
The written judgment has neither been uploaded to the Jharkhand High Court's official website nor provided to the parties involved in the case. This issue was brought to the Supreme Court's attention by senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who argued that such incidents severely discredit the entire judicial system and undermine public trust in the judiciary.
CJI Admits Systemic Problem, Calls for Urgent Rectification
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi acknowledged that this is not an isolated incident but rather a widespread problem with some High Court judges that requires immediate attention. Chief Justice Surya Kant stated, "It is an identified ailment of the justice delivery system. It must be cured and not allowed to infect the system."
Emphasizing the fundamental rights of litigants, the CJI added, "A litigant who approaches the court must get to know what judgment is given on his plea." This statement underscores the basic principle that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done in a timely manner.
Pattern of Delays by the Same Judge Revealed
Further investigation revealed that Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay has a history of keeping judgments pending for years, even in critical cases where convicts had appealed against their capital punishment and life sentences. These verdicts were delivered only after the Supreme Court took judicial notice of the excessive delays, suggesting a pattern of procrastination that affects even the most serious legal matters.
Access to Justice: A Concern for Rural and State Litigants
Amicus curiae Fauzia Shakeel raised an important point about access to justice during the proceedings. She noted that while Rohatgi's client has the financial means to approach the Supreme Court to complain about the delay, many litigants from rural areas and smaller states cannot afford the cost of traveling to Delhi and hiring lawyers to highlight such judicial delays. This disparity creates an unequal justice system where only the affluent can seek remedies for judicial inefficiencies.
Judicial Innovations to Bypass Timelines Exposed
The Chief Justice candidly revealed that certain High Court judges have devised innovative methods to circumvent the established timelines for judgment pronouncement. These judges reserve their verdicts and then relist the cases under the pretext of seeking clarifications, thereby effectively extending the deadline indefinitely without proper justification.
Supreme Court Proposes Administrative Measures and Conference Discussion
When Rohatgi suggested that the Supreme Court should administratively direct High Court chief justices to monitor whether reserved verdicts are pronounced within three months, CJI Surya Kant informed the court about an upcoming conference of High Court chief justices scheduled for February 7. He assured that this issue would be raised prominently during the conference, along with other proposed judicial reforms aimed at improving the efficiency of the justice delivery system.
Court Issues Directives and Emphasizes Judicial Responsibility
The Supreme Court bench issued specific directives to address the immediate concern:
- The Jharkhand High Court judge must make the written judgment available within two weeks
- The judgment must be uploaded to the High Court website promptly
- The Registry must provide certified copies to all parties involved in the case
The Chief Justice also offered practical advice to judges, stating, "Judges should not reserve decisions in a large number of cases when it is beyond them to pen judgments expeditiously. They must use the vacations to complete their pending work." This guidance emphasizes the importance of judicial time management and the ethical responsibility to deliver justice without unnecessary delays.
This case highlights the ongoing challenges within India's judicial system regarding timely justice delivery and the Supreme Court's commitment to addressing these systemic issues through administrative measures and judicial reforms.
