The Supreme Court of India has issued notice on a plea filed by ten convicts, including six convicts facing death penalty, who alleged inaction by the Jharkhand High Court in adjudicating their criminal appeals. These appeals had been reserved for over two-three years without any final judgment.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi passed the order after hearing arguments of advocate Fauzia Shakil, who appeared for the petitioners. The apex court also issued notices on the pleas seeking suspension of the convicts' sentences.
"It is notable that in all the ten reserved cases, the High Court Bench was headed by the same judge," the bench said.
Read also:- High Court Denies Bail in Heinous Child Sexual Assault and Murder Case
According to the plea, nine of the ten convicts are currently lodged in Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi, while the tenth, who was earlier lodged in Dumka Central Jail, was released on bail in May this year after his interim plea was accepted while the appeal was pending.
The criminal appeals were filed in the Jharkhand High Court between 2018 and 2019. The judgements in these cases were reserved for 2022-2023, yet no verdict has been pronounced till date. Some of the convicts have been in custody for more than 16 years, and others have spent more than 6 to 16 years in prison.
Read also:- Chief Justice BR Gavai Urges Law Students to Opt for Foreign LLM Only with Scholarship, not with Loans
The petitioners argued that the delay was violative of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty and includes the right to a speedy trial.
The petition said, "The mental trauma caused to the convicts awaiting execution of their sentence due to undue judicial delay is against established legal principles."
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in HPA International vs Bhagwandas Fateh Chand Daswani, the petition stressed that constitutional courts should avoid reserving judgments for long periods.
The petition also cited the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001), according to which reserved judgments should be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. Further, in the case of five convicts convicted under Section 376 of IPC, the petition also cited Section 376(4) of CrPC, enacted in 2018, which mandates that such appeals be disposed of within six months of filing.
Read also:- Repeated Absence by Advocates in Court is Professional Misconduct, Says Allahabad High Court
In support of their plea for suspension of sentence, the petitioners cited the case of Saudan Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail, in which the Supreme Court had held that convicts who have undergone eight years of actual sentence should be granted bail in most cases.
Despite submitting memoranda to several authorities, including the Chief Justice of India, Chief Justice of Jharkhand High Court and Legal Aid Services, the convicts have not received any response.
"Letters were also submitted to the prison inspecting authorities, but to no avail," the petitioners said.
In an earlier case involving a similar matter, the Supreme Court had taken serious cognizance and directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court to submit a sealed status report. This process was later expanded to include all High Courts and civil cases.
Following the Supreme Court's intervention, the High Court delivered judgments in the earlier four cases - of which the convicts were acquitted in three, while bail was granted in the fourth case and the same was referred to a larger bench.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Allows Life Convict to Marry, Citing Bride’s Courage and Enduring Love
However, in the present petition, advocate Fauzia Shakeel highlighted that the status report submitted by the Jharkhand High Court covered only two out of ten cases.
The matter is actively pending in the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Amit Kumar Das & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., W.P.(Crl.) No. 252/2025