The Supreme Court of India has once again reiterated the need for performance evaluation of High Court judges, emphasizing that the judiciary must meet the legitimate expectations of the public. This recent observation, made by a bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh, comes in the context of a case involving long delays in the pronouncement of reserved judgments by the Jharkhand High Court.
The Court’s remarks highlight not only the importance of judicial efficiency but also the urgent need for self-management mechanisms within the judiciary to prevent backlogs, adjournments, and prolonged delays in the delivery of justice.
The Context: Delays in Reserved Judgments
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from the Jharkhand High Court’s nearly three-year delay in pronouncing verdicts in criminal appeals. Such delays, according to the Court, create serious concerns about judicial functioning and public confidence in the justice delivery system.
The bench clarified that the Supreme Court does not intend to act as a “school principal” over High Court judges but stressed the necessity of broad guidelines to ensure accountability and timely delivery of justice.
Justice Surya Kant observed that while some judges work tirelessly and deliver excellent results, others struggle to keep up with expected disposal rates. Performance evaluation, therefore, becomes essential to maintain uniformity and fairness in judicial functioning.
Need for Performance Evaluation of Judges
One of the most striking remarks made by Justice Kant was about the parameters of performance evaluation. He pointed out that:
- In criminal appeals, even deciding one case per day is a significant achievement.
- In bail matters, however, a judge handling only one case a day reflects inefficiency and requires introspection.
This comparison underscores the fact that judicial performance cannot be measured by a single yardstick. The nature of the case, complexity of issues, and the urgency involved must all be considered when setting benchmarks for performance evaluation.
The Court’s observations indicate a shift towards institutional accountability within the judiciary, where judges themselves recognize the importance of self-assessment and structured guidelines.
Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar Case: Uploading Reasoned Judgments
The Supreme Court also referred to its earlier judgment in Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, which mandated that whenever only the operative part of a judgment is pronounced, the reasoned order must be uploaded within 5 days.
The present bench reiterated that this rule is binding on all High Courts unless the Supreme Court itself modifies the timeline to 10–15 days in exceptional cases.
This directive is crucial because delays in uploading reasoned judgments not only affect litigants but also create procedural hurdles for lawyers, subordinate courts, and the administration of justice at large.
Adjournments: A Dangerous and Demoralising Signal
One of the Court’s strongest observations was against the frequent practice of granting adjournments. Justice Kant warned that when litigants and lawyers perceive that entering a courtroom will result in adjournment rather than resolution, it sends a dangerous and demoralising message.
Some judges, the Court noted, have unfortunately been branded in the past for excessive adjournments. To counter this, the Court emphasized the need for self-management mechanisms among judges, ensuring that cases are disposed of efficiently without unnecessary delays.
Adjournments, the Court stressed, are not a solution but rather a serious threat to judicial credibility.
The Push for Uniform Data and Formats
During the hearing, Advocate Fauzia Shakil (Amicus Curiae) presented a tabular chart based on data collected from High Courts regarding delayed judgments. However, she pointed out inconsistencies in the formats used by different High Courts.
In response, the Supreme Court directed that:
- High Courts must adopt a uniform format for recording judgment timelines.
- Uploaded judgments should clearly mention:
- Date of reservation of judgment
- Date of pronouncement
- Date of uploading
- A column must also indicate whether the uploaded judgment is the full judgment or only the operative part.
These directions aim to bring greater transparency and uniformity to judicial record-keeping, thereby ensuring that data on judicial performance can be meaningfully evaluated.
Challenges Highlighted by Senior Counsel
Senior Advocate Ajit Kumar Sinha, appearing for the respondents, argued that a single yardstick cannot apply to all judges. For instance, while bail matters may be disposed of quickly, criminal appeals often require threadbare analysis and detailed reasoning, making the 5-day deadline for uploading judgments impractical in some cases.
This reflects the complex nature of judicial work, where balance must be struck between efficiency and quality of justice. The Court acknowledged this difficulty but stressed that such concerns should not justify indefinite delays.
Judicial Accountability vs Judicial Independence
The Supreme Court’s call for performance evaluation also raises broader questions about the balance between judicial accountability and judicial independence.
- Judicial accountability requires mechanisms to ensure judges are efficient, responsible, and responsive to public expectations.
- Judicial independence, however, safeguards judges from external pressures, ensuring that their decisions remain unbiased and free from interference.
The Court has taken care to clarify that its intention is not to interfere with the independence of High Court judges but to create broad guidelines that ensure better performance without undermining autonomy.
Why Performance Evaluation Matters
Performance evaluation of judges is not about reducing the judiciary to a numbers game. Instead, it is about:
- Timely justice: Delays erode public trust and harm litigants.
- Transparency: Clear timelines and accountability mechanisms improve credibility.
- Consistency: Uniform formats and parameters bring coherence across High Courts.
- Efficiency: Judges can self-assess and manage their workload better.
In a country like India, where the judiciary is already grappling with over 4.5 crore pending cases, performance evaluation becomes a critical step towards ensuring speedy and effective justice delivery.
Case in Focus
- Case Title: Pila Pahan @ Peela Pahan and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.
- Case No.: W.P. (Crl.) No. 169/2025
- Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice N Kotiswar Singh
- Key Issue: Delayed pronouncement of reserved judgments and need for judicial performance evaluation.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s renewed push for performance evaluation of High Court judges is a welcome step towards enhancing judicial efficiency and accountability. While challenges remain in striking the right balance between speed and quality, the Court’s insistence on self-management, reduced adjournments, and timely uploading of judgments underscores a larger vision of judicial reform.
By laying down broad guidelines and encouraging uniform practices across High Courts, the Supreme Court seeks to ensure that the judiciary meets the legitimate expectations of the public—a crucial factor in maintaining trust in the rule of law.
As this debate continues, one thing is clear: justice delayed is justice denied, and judicial performance evaluation may well be the first step in bridging the gap between expectation and delivery.
Also Read
Delhi High Court: Senior Citizens Can Cancel Gift Deeds If Maintenance Is Denied
