E-Paper
‘Justice withheld’: Top court notice to HC on plea by 4 convicts awaiting order
The Supreme Court said justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that
The Supreme Court on Wednesday called for a report from the Jharkhand high court on the number of judgments reserved for orders for more than two months. The direction came after four life convicts lodged in Jharkhand jail told the top court that an order on their conviction has been reserved by the high court since 2022.
The four convicts lodged in the Birsa Munda jail filed a petition urging the top court to protect their fundamental rights of life and liberty as three years seemed to be too long a period for judgment to be delivered on their appeals.
Taking note of the serious concern raised by them, a bench of justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh issued notice on their petition to the Jharkhand government and the high court situated at Ranchi and posted it for hearing.
Passing a short order, the bench directed the registrar general of Jharkhand high court to file a status report in a sealed cover giving details of all cases where judgments are reserved for a period of more than two months old. The court further issued notice on an application by the four convicts seeking bail as they had undergone about 11 to 16 years of their punishment.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil who represented the convicts – Pila Pahan, Soma Badang, Satyanar and Dharmesh Oraon said that they belong to the scheduled tribe and other backward classes community and are not in a position to apply for remission without being aware of the outcome in their appeals.
In the case of Oraon, the judgment was reserved more than three years ago, while in other cases, there was a delay of roughly 2 years and 11 months.
The petition pointed out that the problem is not limited to these four prisoners alone as it annexed a list of 10 other life convicts awaiting decision on their appeals from the high court for approximately 3 years.
The convicts had even moved representations to the Jharkhand high court chief justice, legal bodies such as National Legal Services Authority, Jharkhand State Legal Service Authority, and even the state officials and law officers during their visits to the jail, but to no avail.
The petition cited judgments of the top court which has deprecated such practice while insisting on judgments to be delivered preferably within three months of being reserved, and in no event beyond six months. In a suo motu petition heard by the top court in ‘In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail’ the court had held that a life convict who has undergone 8 years of actual sentence, should be granted bail.
The top court in Ani Rai v State of Bihar (2001) observed, “It has been held time and again that justice should not only be done but should also appear to have been done. Similarly, whereas justice delayed is justice denied, justice withheld is even worse than that.”
This judgment further laid down the requirement for judgments to contain the dates when the matter was reserved and the matter was pronounced. Besides, chief justices of high courts were asked to call for list of cases from all judges in matters where judgments are reserved, are not pronounced. The directions further required the chief justice to ensure the pending judgments are delivered within six weeks.
Further, the 2001 judgment said, “Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving it, any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the high court with a prayer for early judgment.” Additionally, if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months, the parties were allowed to move an application before the chief justice of the high court concerned with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments.
