Latest news with #JharkhandHC
New Indian Express
7 days ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Jharkhand HC slams government over delay in local body elections; summons Chief Secretary on July 25
RANCHI: Expressing strong displeasure over the state government's approach towards holding the urban local body elections in the state, the Jharkhand High Court on Friday directed the Chief Secretary to appear it in person during the next hearing. The court by Justice Ananda Sen, in strong words, stated that the state government is bypassing judicial orders and strangling the rule of law in the state. The court was hearing a contempt petition, filed by outgoing municipal councilor Roshni Khalkho, over the delay in holding the urban local body elections in the state. The court has fixed the date of July 25, 2025 for the next hearing. Notably, the Jharkhand HC, while hearing a writ petition on January 4, 2024 had directed the State Election Commission to announce dates for conducting Municipal Elections within three weeks, but the urban local body elections are still pending. Therefore, the contempt petition was filed by Roshni Khalkho in the Jharkhand High Court.
The Print
14-07-2025
- Politics
- The Print
10 convicts from Jharkhand, including 6 on death row, move SC over long-pending verdict on appeals
Monday, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant took serious note of the petition and issued a notice to the Jharkhand HC for its response. According to the petition, jointly filed by the convicts, verdicts in eight cases were reserved more than three years ago. Judgments in the remaining two have not been pronounced despite a lapse of 2-3 years. New Delhi: Ten convicts from Jharkhand, including six who are on death row, have moved the Supreme Court, complaining against the delayed disposal of their appeals by the state HC. The petition raises important questions regarding convicts' rights to personal liberty and procedural fairness under the criminal justice system. It argues that convicts too have the right to live with dignity under the Constitution. Prolonged delay in disposal of their appeals is antithetical to Constitutional as well as statutory rights. Incidentally, this is the second time that convicts from Jharkhand have sought the top court's intervention in pending verdicts on their appeals filed against trial court decisions. In the previous round, four convicts had filed writ petitions under Article 32—a remedy under the Constitution to move the top court directly for enforcement of a fundamental right. Subsequent to the apex court's notice, the HC had delivered its verdict for all four, resulting in acquittal in three cases. In the fourth case, the HC had referred the case to a third judge due to a difference of opinion between the two judges. Nonetheless, the convict in the fourth case was released on bail immediately. Taking note of the inordinate delay on the part of the state HC, Justice Kant's bench had asked its registrar general for a detailed report on the status of such cases, if any. Notably, all the 14 cases that have reached the top court were heard by a division bench of two judges. As per the Jharkhand HC website, Justice Rongon Mukopadhyay led the two-judges bench that heard and then reserved the verdict in these matters. Only the junior judges were different. Justice Mukopadhyay also heads the High Court Services Legal Committee—a legal aid body that provides free legal services to marginalised sections of the society. Three of six death row convicts, who filed their appeals in the HC in 2018, are facing death sentence in rape cases. One of the 10 petitioners has been in jail for more than 16 years and had filed his appeal in the HC in 2013. Six have been in jail for more than a decade, with two having spent more than 15 years behind bars. The remaining three have been in jail for 6 to 8 years now. The petitioners, who moved their petition through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC), were represented in the top court by advocate Fauzia Shakil. Before moving the SC, the petitioners and their families repeatedly raised the issue of delayed verdicts with multiple authorities, including the Chief Justice of the HC. They also wrote to the Chief Minister's office and legal aid bodies such as NALSA, state as well as district legal services authority. The delay is not just a procedural violation, but a breach of a statutory mandate too. The petition pointed out that as per the Jharkhand HC rules, a judgment should ordinarily be pronounced within six weeks of the conclusion of arguments. If not pronounced within three months of the conclusion of the arguments, the Chief Justice may either post the case for delivering the judgment in an open court or withdraw and post it for disposal before an appropriate bench. In terms of the statutory mandate, the rape appeals ought to have been disposed of within six months of the filing of the appeal. Under the Criminal Law (Amendment Act), 2018, which came into effect on 21 April 2018, with the insertion of sub-section (4) in section 376 of the erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code (CrPc), an appeal filed against the sentence imposed under the rape law must be disposed of within six months from the date of filing of an appeal. The petition is also an attempt to seek correction of earlier Supreme Court judgments that have given relief to death row convicts only when there is delay on the part of the President or Governor in deciding mercy petitions, observing inordinate delay in the execution of death sentence causes mentally agony. Ironically, these judgments have excluded the impact of protracted delays in judicial proceedings, such as confirmation of death sentences or adjudication of criminal appeals, on a convict's mental health and dignity. Courts have criticised the executives—President and Governor—for their inexplicable delay in deciding mercy petitions of death row convicts while commuting them to life sentences, but have refrained from taking into account the judicial impasse that has forced prisoners to remain incarcerated for prolonged periods. Rather, judicial decisions have held that a convict is not under immediate threat of execution when his/her appeal is a subject of judicial consideration, meaning pendency of their case in a court does not affect them psychologically. 'It is further submitted that mere availability of judicial remedies does not eliminate the mental anguish; in fact, protracted delays in judicial proceedings exacerbate the suffering, as the convict is kept in a state of suspended animation—neither assured of life nor facing immediate execution,' the petition has submitted. 'It is respectfully submitted that the pendency of death sentence confirmation hearings or criminal appeals, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, is not a period of calm or relief. Rather, it is a period of uncertainty and anxiety. The convict remains incarcerated under the shadow of a potential execution despite the existence of legal remedies,' it added. Delay in pronouncement of judgments is not just a violation of the right under Article 21, but is a crucial factor for suspension of the sentence, the petition has argued. (Edited by Viny Mishra) Also read: Why Supreme Court hasn't confirmed a single death sentence in the last two years
Indian Express
05-05-2025
- Politics
- Indian Express
After pulling up Jharkhand HC, Supreme Court now tells all HCs to list cases where verdict reserved but pending
The Supreme Court Monday directed the Registrar Generals of all High Courts to submit within four weeks a report detailing cases where judgments have been reserved on or before January 31 but have not been pronounced yet. The top court also took note of a May 5 report by The Indian Express which said that the Jharkhand High Court had pronounced judgments in 75 criminal appeals in a single week after a rap from the Supreme Court on April 23 for reserving verdicts in criminal appeals without pronouncing them. In the week preceding the SC rap, as The Indian Express reported, the Jharkhand HC had pronounced 16 verdicts. On Monday, a division bench of Justices Surya Kant and N K Singh said that reports from all the High Court Registrar Generals 'shall contain the Criminal Appeals and Civil Matters separately with a further specification as to whether it is a Division Bench Matter or a Single Bench Matter.' 'The composition of Benches shall also be disclosed. The Registrar General of the High Courts shall furnish the requisite information within four weeks,' it said. The SC also took on record The Indian Express report, ' After SC rap, HC decides 75 criminal appeals in a week ', and took cognisance of it. 'The news item published in the newspaper – Indian Express, dated 05.05.2025, be kept on record,' the bench directed. The bench also directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand HC to furnish the list of the 75 criminal appeals where it had pronounced judgments. It said the list 'shall indicate the date(s) when the judgments were reserved along with soft copies of the judgments pronounced by the High Court'. The top court's April 23 direction came while it was hearing a petition by four convicts who said judgments in their appeals against conviction were pending for over three years. The SC had directed the Jharkhand HC's Registrar General to furnish details of cases where judgment was reserved more than two months ago. Meanwhile, going through the Jharkhand HC report, which was furnished in a sealed cover, the court recorded in its order that 'there are 56 matters, including some Criminal Appeals, where a learned Division Bench of the (Jharkhand) High Court has finally heard the matters on different dates ranging from 04.01.2022 till 16.12.2024 but the final pronouncements are still awaited. There are 11 Single Bench Matters also before another Hon'ble Judge where the judgments are reserved on different dates between 25.07.2024 to 27.09.2024.' 'However, the list of 56 matters, sent by the Registrar General of the Jharkhand High Court, does not contain the Criminal Appeals filed by the petitioners.' The court has now asked the Jharkhand HC about the fate of the criminal appeals filed by the four petitioners. These four are in prison on charges ranging from murder, rape and under the Arms Act, with incarceration spanning over a decade, and over 16 years in the case of one convict. The petitioners had also submitted before the SC that apart from them, there are 10 other convicts in the same situation before the Jharkhand HC whose appeals have been heard but judgments have not been pronounced 'for approximately three years'. The court will hear the case on July 31. It posted the matters for consideration of bail to the four petitioners to May 13. It has additionally directed the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority to 'ensure that appropriate proceedings are initiated in all the 10 matters,' for the purpose of seeking suspension of their sentence and consequently, to seek their release on bail during the pendency of their appeals. It also directed the state body 'to take immediate necessary steps to provide legal assistance…and ensure that the convicts like the petitioners are not left remediless'.
