New Delhi, Nov 12 (PTI) To enhance transparency and accountability, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all the high courts in the country to create a dashboard on their websites giving details of judgements reserved after January 31, verdicts pronounced, and the date of uploading on their platforms.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which has taken a critical view of several high courts, including the Jharkhand High Court, not delivering verdicts in both criminal and civil cases for years together after hearing the final arguments and reserving their decisions, said this data should be in public domain.

"Let everyone know how many judgements were reserved, in how many cases orders were passed and on which date the decision was uploaded on the high court website," Justice Kant said. Concurring with Justice Kant, Justice Bagchi said, "Creating a dashboard or a separate window on the high court's website will show the accountability of the judiciary towards the people".

The top court was hearing a batch of pleas of which one, filed initially by several death row and life convicts through advocate Fauzia Shakil, complained to the top court that the Jharkhand High Court did not deliver judgements for couple of years on their appeals against conviction and sentence, after hearing the final arguments and reserving the decisions.

However, immediately after the apex court's nudge, the Jharkhand High Court delivered the verdicts in their matter and most of them were acquitted of their charges.

Similarly, other convicts lodged in different jails of Jharkhand also approached the top court seeking similar directions.

The bench then expanded the scope of the litigation and sought details of such cases from all the high courts, where judgements were not pronounced for months even after reserving the decisions.

On Wednesday, Shakil, appointed amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out that seven high courts have not submitted their details, while the rest have submitted their reports and the data is being compiled.

The bench took serious note of the submissions, and directed the high courts of Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Patna, Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Telangana, and Gauhati to file their reports within two weeks or their registrar general will be physically present on the next date of hearing.

It also asked the high courts to give their suggestions on improving dissemination of information to the general public, so that pan-India guidelines can be formulated.

It also asked them to highlight their concerns or apprehensions or difficulties, if any, on release of such information on judgements delivered to the general public.

Justice Kant observed that the data to be displayed on the websites will not be person or case specific and would only give the total number of cases in which judgements were reserved from January 31 onwards till October 31, 2025, number of cases in which judgements were delivered during the period, and on which date the verdicts were uploaded on the high court's website.

On September 22, the top court lamented some high court judges being unable to "deliver on their tasks" and called for their "performance evaluation".

The top court said though it did not want to act like a "school principal" for the high court judges, but there ought to be a self-management system to ensure "files don't pile up on their desks".

It stressed on "performance evaluation" but underlined the question of parameters and guidelines guiding the process.

Justice Kant had pointed out that some judges have the habit of adjourning cases unnecessarily, and said it could be dangerous for the image of the judges as has been the case with some of them in the past.

On August 8, in another case, the top court suggested the Jharkhand High Court judges to take leave for writing pending verdicts after observing that there were 61 cases in which judgements weren't pronounced.

Earlier, during the hearing in the instant case, on May 13, the top court called for a performance audit of high court judges observing that some of them were taking breaks "unnecessarily".

It said the top court was receiving several complaints against high court judges and it was high time to assess the expenditure on them vis-a-vis their output.

The top court had earlier termed the issue raised by the life and death row convicts in Jharkhand of "paramount importance" that "goes to the root of the criminal justice system". PTI MNL ARI