NEW DELHI: Constitutional courts fix deadlines for everyone, including the President, but no such limitation applies to them for pronouncing judgments. Four murder convicts moved Supreme Court on Wednesday alleging that Jharkhand HC has not delivered verdicts in their appeals even though decisions were reserved three years ago.
Appearing for the four appellants incarcerated for 16 to 11 years, advocate Fauzia Shakil informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that they had filed appeals, one in 2012, two in 2014 and one in 2018, and Jharkhand HC had reserved verdicts in their cases in the months of Jan, April, May and June of 2022. Despite lapse of three years, verdicts are yet to be pronounced, she said.
The bench took serious view of the lapse and issued notice to Jharkhand HC registrar general, asking him to furnish in 10 days details about the pending appeals, the judges who had heard the appeals and the years for which judgments have been reserved.
SC can rectify or take remedial measures when HCs reserve verdicts for an unusually long period of time but could it do anything when a judgment gets reserved for months together by an SC bench? A bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih had reserved a verdict in a long-pending litigation between Iskcon’s Mumbai and Bengaluru branches on July 24, 2024. The judgment is yet to be pronounced, and Justice Oka is scheduled to retire on May 24.
Shakil urged the Justice Kant-led bench that as the appellants had served more than a decade in prison, the court could use its discretionary powers to enlarge them on bail. The bench also issued notice to Jharkhand govt and sought its response on bail plea .
The first petitioner, 72-year-old Pila Pahan, was arrested on Jan 9, 2009, in a murder case and was awarded life imprisonment upon conviction in 2012. He has undergone more than 16 years of incarceration and the HC verdict on his 13-year-old appeal is yet to be delivered.
Satyanarayan Sahu was arrested in April 2011 in a murder case and was awarded a life sentence in Aug 2014. His appeal against conviction is pending in HC for the last 11 years, and he has already undergone more than 13 years of imprisonment.
The third petitioner, Soma Bading, was convicted in a 2010 murder case in 2014 and his appeal has been pending in the HC for the last 11 years. In total he has been imprisoned for over 14 years. The fourth petitioner, Dharmeshwar Oraon, was convicted in a 2013 rape case in 2018, and his appeal is pending for last seven years in the HC. He has been imprisoned for the last nearly 12 years.
The petition came as a shock to Justice Kant, who as head of the SC Legal Services Committee had recently taken a countrywide initiative in coordination with national, state and district legal services authorities to provide legal aid to every prisoner whose cases are being delayed in trial courts or for those who are not able to put forth their bail plea before the courts.
Appearing for the four appellants incarcerated for 16 to 11 years, advocate Fauzia Shakil informed a bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh that they had filed appeals, one in 2012, two in 2014 and one in 2018, and Jharkhand HC had reserved verdicts in their cases in the months of Jan, April, May and June of 2022. Despite lapse of three years, verdicts are yet to be pronounced, she said.
The bench took serious view of the lapse and issued notice to Jharkhand HC registrar general, asking him to furnish in 10 days details about the pending appeals, the judges who had heard the appeals and the years for which judgments have been reserved.
SC can rectify or take remedial measures when HCs reserve verdicts for an unusually long period of time but could it do anything when a judgment gets reserved for months together by an SC bench? A bench of Justices A S Oka and A G Masih had reserved a verdict in a long-pending litigation between Iskcon’s Mumbai and Bengaluru branches on July 24, 2024. The judgment is yet to be pronounced, and Justice Oka is scheduled to retire on May 24.
Shakil urged the Justice Kant-led bench that as the appellants had served more than a decade in prison, the court could use its discretionary powers to enlarge them on bail. The bench also issued notice to Jharkhand govt and sought its response on bail plea .
The first petitioner, 72-year-old Pila Pahan, was arrested on Jan 9, 2009, in a murder case and was awarded life imprisonment upon conviction in 2012. He has undergone more than 16 years of incarceration and the HC verdict on his 13-year-old appeal is yet to be delivered.
Satyanarayan Sahu was arrested in April 2011 in a murder case and was awarded a life sentence in Aug 2014. His appeal against conviction is pending in HC for the last 11 years, and he has already undergone more than 13 years of imprisonment.
The third petitioner, Soma Bading, was convicted in a 2010 murder case in 2014 and his appeal has been pending in the HC for the last 11 years. In total he has been imprisoned for over 14 years. The fourth petitioner, Dharmeshwar Oraon, was convicted in a 2013 rape case in 2018, and his appeal is pending for last seven years in the HC. He has been imprisoned for the last nearly 12 years.
The petition came as a shock to Justice Kant, who as head of the SC Legal Services Committee had recently taken a countrywide initiative in coordination with national, state and district legal services authorities to provide legal aid to every prisoner whose cases are being delayed in trial courts or for those who are not able to put forth their bail plea before the courts.
You may also like
J--K: Police busts LeT module, arrests four overground workers in Bandipora
Pahalgam attack: Father-son duo on spiritual trip fall prey to terrorists' bullets
Akhil Sachdeva on creative blocks: I believe in my process
CLAT UG: 'Re-issue the CLAT exam results'; Delhi High Court directs the consortium of NLUs..
Penn Badgley tells why it was a 'struggle' to 'differentiate' himself from his 'Gossip Girl' role
