New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday expressed concern over certain High Court judges struggling to meet performance expectations, underscoring the need for a formal mechanism to monitor efficiency while maintaining judicial independence.
A bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh observed that while many judges tirelessly dispose of cases at a remarkable pace, others lag behind.
"There are judges who work day and night and are giving outstanding disposal of cases. But at the same time, there are some judges who unfortunately are unable to deliver – whatever may be the reasons, good or bad," the bench said.
Performance must reflect case type
Justice Kant clarified that expectations must account for the nature of cases.
"Suppose a judge is hearing a criminal appeal, then deciding even one case in a day is a significant achievement. But in bail matters, if a judge decides only one case per day, that requires introspection," he remarked.
The Court stressed that this initiative was not about monitoring judges like a "school principal" but creating broad guidelines so judges understand their tasks and public expectations.
Impact of delays and adjournments
The bench noted that unnecessary adjournments could tarnish judicial reputation.
"Every judge should have a self-management system to ensure case files don’t pile up. Some judges, in their anxiety to hear more cases, adjourn unnecessarily, which is harmful to the judiciary’s image," Justice Kant added.
This discussion arose from delays in the Jharkhand High Court, where several life convicts and death row prisoners had waited years for verdicts in reserved criminal appeals. Though judgments were eventually pronounced, the Supreme Court flagged systemic delays.
Mandate for judgment pronouncement
The Court reiterated its prior ruling that when only the operative part of a judgment is delivered, the detailed reasons must follow within five days.
"Unless the timeline is modified by this Court, the High Courts are bound to follow it," the bench emphasised, referring to the precedent set in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat.
Data on reserved judgments
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, appearing as Amicus Curiae, presented a chart showing the status of reserved judgments across High Courts. The bench directed her to compile uniform data on dates of reservation, pronouncement, and online uploading within two weeks.
Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha was asked to assist in ensuring fairness in applying these standards, noting that disposal rates differ for criminal appeals versus bail matters.
By highlighting accountability, structured performance evaluation, and timely judgment delivery, the Supreme Court sent a clear message: public confidence in the judiciary depends not just on fair decisions but also on efficient and transparent judicial processes.
Supreme Court directed uniform data compilation, adherence to timelines for judgment pronouncement, and encouraged High Courts to adopt self-management systems and clear guidelines for judicial performance.