Has the SC intervened after a prolonged delay in Jharkhand HC's verdict for 10 convicts?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
In a significant development, the Supreme Court has intervened regarding a long-overdue verdict from the Jharkhand High Court involving 10 convicts, including six on death row. This case raises critical questions about the justice system's efficiency and the right to timely judgments.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court has intervened in a case involving a significant delay in judgment delivery.
- The convicts allege that their constitutional rights have been violated.
- The case highlights the need for reforms in the judicial system.
- Legal representatives stress the psychological impact of prolonged waiting periods on convicts.
- The situation raises questions about the efficiency of the legal process in India.
New Delhi/Ranchi, July 14 (NationPress) The Supreme Court issued a notice to the Jharkhand High Court on Monday in response to a petition from 10 convicts, including six facing the death penalty, who claimed an excessive delay in the delivery of their judgment.
The petitioners approached the Jharkhand High Court between 2018 and 2019 to contest their convictions from a lower court. Although the hearings wrapped up in 2022-23, the High Court has not yet rendered its decision, prompting the convicts to seek intervention from the apex court.
Of the 10 petitioners, six received death sentences, while the other four were sentenced to life imprisonment. Nine of them are currently incarcerated at Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi, and one has recently been released on bail from Dumka jail.
A bench comprised of Justice Suryakant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi remarked that the same judge reserved judgment across all these cases, raising concerns regarding the lengthy delay.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, representing the petitioners, argued that deferring a verdict for years after the hearings violates Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to speedy justice.
Shakil emphasized the psychological distress endured by the convicts due to the delay, particularly those awaiting execution.
She referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in HPA International vs Bhagwandas, where the court criticized the indefinite postponement of judgments.
The petition also mentioned the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001), which stipulate that judgments must be issued within six weeks following the conclusion of arguments.
Additionally, citing earlier Supreme Court rulings regarding sentence suspension, the advocate pointed out that convicts who have already completed eight years of actual sentence typically qualify for bail.
Point of View
I believe that the concerns raised in this case are essential for maintaining public trust in our justice system. Timely judgments are not just procedural; they are a fundamental right under the Constitution. The prolonged delay in this instance underscores the urgent need for reforms within our judicial framework to ensure that justice is delivered swiftly and efficiently.
NationPress
14/07/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the reason behind the Supreme Court's notice to the Jharkhand HC?
The Supreme Court issued a notice due to the prolonged delay in delivering judgments concerning a group of 10 convicts, including those on death row.
How many convicts are involved in this case?
There are 10 convicts involved in this case, with six facing the death penalty and four sentenced to life imprisonment.
What legal right do the convicts claim has been violated?
The convicts claim that their right to speedy justice, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution, has been violated due to the excessive delay.
Where are the majority of the convicts currently held?
Most of the convicts are currently detained at Birsa Munda Central Jail in Hotwar, Ranchi.
What do the Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001) state about judgment delivery?
The Jharkhand High Court Rules (2001) require that judgments must be delivered within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments.
