Towards a transparent, accountable judiciary

The backlog of reserved judgments signals broader systemic dysfunction. In this context, the Supreme Court's direction that high courts must disclose adjournments, causes of delay, and time taken to upload judgments is justified

- Maja Daruwala

Days ahead of being sworn in as the Chief Justice of India (CJI), Justice Surya Kant called for high courts to make public the time judges take to pronounce reserved verdicts and more.

The trigger was a case from Jharkhand, where four life convicts — two from Scheduled Tribes and two from OBC communities - had waited two to three years after their criminal appeals were heard, with final judgments left in limbo.

These observations are not the first time the top court has raised alarms over reserved judgments in Jharkhand. Expressing "shock" at rising backlogs of reserved cases, it had urged judges to use sanctioned leave to clear criminal and civil appeals and pressed for regular public reporting on matters involving death sentences and life imprisonment. Needless to say, Jharkhand does not stand alone in the dock. In Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Delhi, for example, the backlog of reserved judgments signals broader systemic dysfunction.

In this context, the Supreme Court's direction that high courts must disclose adjournments, causes of delay, and time taken to upload judgments is entirely justified. After all, there appears to be no reason why performance data should be shielded from the very people who suffer its consequences.

Justice Kant's remarks on transparency and timeliness point to deeper, longstanding malaises. With a little over a year's tenure, he will have more breathing time than his two predecessors. But given the task, time will bite at his heels. He will want to leave the institution better than he found it. What he inherits is daunting: Staggering vacancies, mounting pendency, threadbare infrastructure.