Supreme Court Flags Judge Performance Gaps, Calls for Evaluation Framework
New Delhi, September 29, 2025:
The Supreme Court has voiced concern over uneven performance among high court judges, noting that while many toil day and night to clear heavy dockets, others struggle to keep pace with their responsibilities.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh made the observations while hearing a matter on long-pending criminal appeals. “There are judges who work tirelessly and deliver outstanding disposals. But at the same time, there are some judges who unfortunately are unable to deliver—whatever may be the reasons, good or bad,” Justice Kant remarked.
Bail Cases vs Criminal Appeals
The court drew a practical distinction between types of cases. “Suppose a judge is hearing a criminal appeal, then we don’t expect him to decide 50 cases in a day—deciding even one is a big achievement. But in a bail matter, if a judge says I will decide only one bail matter in a day, that is something which requires introspection,” Justice Kant pointed out.
The bench stressed that the call was not for “micro-managing judges like a school principal” but for setting broad performance guidelines—a roadmap to ensure clarity of expectations and consistency in judicial delivery.
Trigger for Concern
The observations stemmed from complaints by life convicts and death row prisoners in Jharkhand, who alleged that the High Court had reserved their appeals for years without pronouncing verdicts. Though the judgments were eventually delivered and many were acquitted, the delay raised red flags about systemic inefficiencies.
Advocate Fauzia Shakil, who presented a chart on reserved judgments, highlighted that several high courts failed to submit data in the required format. The bench has now asked her to compile detailed information within two weeks, with senior advocate Ajit Sinha assisting.
Delays and Their Impact
Justice Kant also warned against frequent adjournments, noting that some judges unnecessarily pile up cases. “Every judge should have a self-management system… adjournments not only delay justice but also affect the reputation of judges themselves,” he cautioned.
The court further reminded high courts of its earlier mandate: if only the operative part of a judgment is delivered, the detailed reasoning must follow within five days.
Beyond Fairness, Timeliness Matters
In its closing words, the bench underlined that judicial accountability is not just about fairness but also about efficiency and timeliness. Public faith, the court stressed, depends on both.
