The Supreme Court on Monday stressed the necessity of evolving a performance evaluation mechanism for judges of High Courts [Pila Pahan@ Peela Pahan and ors v. State of Jharkhand and anr]..A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh noted that while some judges work tirelessly and dispose of matters expeditiously, others are unable to deliver judgments with the same efficiency.The Court added that broad guidelines are needed to inform judges of their responsibilities and to uphold the public’s legitimate expectations, without micromanaging like a school principal."Another thing we may suggest is the performance evaluation of judges. That is also a very big challenge. There are judges who work day and night, delivering outstanding disposals. But there are also judges who, unfortunately, are unable to deliver — there may be good reasons or bad reasons, we don’t know. That depends on circumstances. Suppose a judge is sitting in a criminal appeal; we don’t expect him to decide 50 cases. Our intention is not to act as a school principal and monitor everything, but there should be broad guidelines. Judges should know what the task before them is. This is the legitimate expectation of the public at large from our institution," the Court observed. .The Court cautioned against the routine practice of granting adjournments, observing that such a trend damages the credibility of the judicial system and undermines litigants’ faith in timely justice. The Bench pointed out that some judges in the past had unfortunately acquired such a reputation, and it has a demoralising impact on litigants as well as the system.It underlined that judges must practice self-management to ensure matters are disposed of efficiently rather than piling up case in the name of hearing more cases."Every judge needs to have a self-management mechanism also, so that [cases] are not piled up in an anxiety to hear more and more. Adjournments are not the solution. If judges build up an image that you enter the Court, you argue, and you get adjournment, that is the most dangerous and most demoralising message that will be sent," court noted..The Court was dealing with a plea by four life convicts belonging to Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) communities, who alleged that the Jharkhand High Court failed to deliver a verdict on their criminal appeals despite reserving these matters for judgment for over two to three years.Following the apex court’s intervention in May 2025, the High Court eventually delivered rulings in the four appeals, which had been pending for nearly three years.However, taking note of the broader problem of delays in pronouncing reserved judgments, the Supreme Court sought information from all High Courts regarding matters reserved before January 31, 2025, in which judgments had not been delivered.During the hearing, Amicus Curiae Fauzia Shakil submitted a tabular chart compiling the information received from the High Courts. She also highlighted the challenges caused by the non-uniform formats in which the data was presented.In response, Justice Kant suggested creating a standardised format to streamline the process of collecting and reporting such information.The Court directed that the High Courts revise their rules and formats so that every uploaded judgment specifies the date on which it was reserved, the date on which it was pronounced, and the date on which it was uploaded on the concerned court's website.Further, the Supreme Court reiterated that when only the operative part of a judgment is pronounced, the reasons must follow promptly. Referring to Ratilal Jhaverbhai Parmar v. State of Gujarat, it reaffirmed that the reasons should generally be uploaded within five days of pronouncement.”The High Courts are therefore bound to follow this unless this Court, on account of some practical difficulties that High Courts might experience, deem it appropriate to revise the timelines from 5 days to 10 or 15 days (maximum),” the Court added.The Court listed the matter for further consideration on November 10.
