All HCs should upload details of time taken by judges to deliver verdicts

 Why in News?

• The Supreme Court directed all High Courts to publicly disclose data on how long judges take to pronounce verdicts after hearings are reserved.
• The order arose during a plea by four life convicts (ST/OBC) whose appeals were pending before the Jharkhand High Court for over 2–3 years after being reserved for judgment.

Relevance

• GS 2 – Polity & Governance
  • Separation of powers, judicial accountability, transparency in institutions.
  • Right to speedy trial and constitutional morality.
• GS 4 – Ethics 
  • Ethical governance, accountability of public functionaries, performance integrity in institutions.

Judicial Delays in Pronouncing Verdicts

• No statutory timeline:
  • Neither the Constitution nor procedural laws fix a specific deadline for delivering judgments.
  • Conventionally, judgments should be pronounced within 2–6 months after being reserved.
• Ground reality:
  • Many High Courts and even the Supreme Court often delay judgments beyond a year.
  • Reasons include heavy caseload, complexity of cases, or judicial transfers/retirements.

Supreme Court’s Observations (Bench: Justices Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi)

• Judicial transparency must extend beyond case listings and hearings to the timeliness of judgments.
• Directed High Courts to:
  • Publish data on:
    • Number of reserved judgments.
    • Average time taken to pronounce them.
    • Date of pronouncement and upload on court websites.
• Purpose: Ensure accountability, efficiency, and public confidence in judicial functioning.
• Justice Surya Kant (CJI-designate) emphasised:
  • “Let everybody know how many judgments have been reserved and pronounced by each judge.”

Legal and Institutional Context

• Article 21 – Right to Speedy Justice:
  • Delay in judgment delivery violates the constitutional guarantee of a fair and timely trial.
  • Supreme Court in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) held that judgments must ordinarily be delivered within six months of being reserved.
• Judicial Accountability:
  • A critical element of judicial ethics and transparency, central to good governance and public trust.
• Article 235:
  • Empowers High Courts to oversee judicial administration — including discipline, efficiency, and performance of subordinate judges.

Causes Behind Delay in Verdict Pronouncements

• Caseload Pressure: India’s courts handle over 4.5 crore pending cases (as of 2025).
• Limited Bench Strength: Chronic vacancies in High Courts (~25–30% unfilled).
• Complexity of Cases: Constitutional and commercial matters demand extensive reasoning.
• Administrative Burdens: Judges also manage non-judicial tasks (rosters, transfers, committees).
• Lack of Monitoring Mechanisms: No uniform data tracking on reserved or pending judgments.

Implications of the Supreme Court’s Direction

• Transparency Boost:
  • Public access to judgment timelines enhances judicial credibility.
  • Enables performance assessment of judges.
• Institutional Accountability:
  • Encourages High Courts to streamline case management and reduce pendency.
• Public Trust:
  • Citizens gain visibility into how efficiently justice is being delivered.
• Systemic Reform Precedent:
  • May lead to formal judicial performance metrics and National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) integration.

Challenges Ahead

• Implementation:
  • Courts need standardised reporting formats and regular updating of websites.
• Resource Gaps:
  • IT infrastructure and manpower in smaller High Courts remain limited.
• Judicial Independence Concerns:
  • Performance tracking must not compromise judicial autonomy or create “league tables” of judges.
• Data Accuracy:
  • Risk of inconsistent reporting unless centrally monitored (e.g., by e-Committee of Supreme Court).

Way Forward

• Codify Timelines: Institutionalise a maximum 6-month limit post-reservation, as per Anil Rai guidelines.
• Integrate with NJDG: Real-time data on reserved and pronounced judgments.
• Judicial Training: Capacity building in case management and judgment writing.
• Periodic Audits: Conduct performance audits via High Court registries.
• Balance Transparency with Independence: Ensure accountability without public shaming of individual judges.

Significance

• Reinforces Article 21’s guarantee of speedy justice.
• Advances judicial reform through transparency — a step toward citizen-centric governance.
• Strengthens public confidence in the judiciary, making it more accountable and data-driven.

---