The Supreme Court has called for all High Courts across states to publicly disclose how long their judges take to deliver reserved judgments. A Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi issued the direction while dealing with a petition filed by four life convicts from Jharkhand belonging to the ST and OBC communities.

The petitioners had complained that the Jharkhand High Court had kept their criminal appeals pending for years after reserving verdicts, with no indication of when a decision would be delivered.

Justice Kant, who will soon assume charge as Chief Justice of India, said transparency must extend beyond case listings and cause lists.

“People are entitled to know how many matters remain reserved before each judge, how promptly verdicts are delivered, and the time taken to place judgments in the public domain,” he remarked during the hearing.

Justice Bagchi suggested that each High Court should maintain a dedicated dashboard tracking reserved cases and pronouncements. Such a system, he said, would demonstrate accountability and give the public a clear view of judicial functioning.

In its order, the Bench sought detailed reports from all High Courts on their current practices for publishing data on reserved and pronounced judgments. They have been asked to furnish information on cases reserved after January 31, 2025, and on judgments delivered up to October 31, 2025, including the timelines for uploading orders online.

The Supreme Court also invited the High Courts to express any reservations about adopting a uniform disclosure framework, noting that concerns about the fallout of such transparency should be openly shared.

The apex court had earlier said it was “shocked” to learn that out of 61 civil cases where decisions were reserved by the Jharkhand High Court before January 31, 2025, judgments remain to be pronounced in 47 cases. A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma was apprised of the pendency by the Registrar General of the High Court.

In earlier proceedings in September, the Court had underscored the need to periodically assess judicial performance. While maintaining that the judiciary should not be micromanaged, the Bench observed that broad guidelines were essential to ensure predictability and discipline in judgment delivery.