After Supreme Court rap, Jharkhand HC decides 75 criminal appeals in a week
Between April 24 to May 2, the Jharkhand HC pronounced judgments in 75 criminal appeals — 11 of those were reserved for judgment in 2024, and the rest in 2025.
Following the Supreme Court’s rap on April 23 for undue delay in pronouncing judgments after reserving them, the Jharkhand High Court listed and pronounced judgments in over 75 criminal appeals in just one week (April 24 to May 2).
In contrast, the week before, between April 15 to 23, the HC had pronounced verdicts in only 16 criminal appeals. In criminal appeals, an individual convicted by a lower court can seek a review of their case in a higher court, challenging the conviction or sentence. In cases of conviction, the convict would still be in jail while the HC decides the appeal. A delay in pronouncing a verdict could extend the period of incarceration and lead to a delay in moving the SC in a further appeal.
On April 23, a bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea by four murder convicts whose cases were heard and reserved for verdict over three years ago. The bench had directed the Registrar General of the Jharkhand HC to submit a status report in a sealed cover by May 5, detailing bench-wise judgments which were reserved two months ago or before. The Indian Express tracked daily cause lists of the High Court for over a week after the SC took note of the issue.
Between April 24 to May 2, the Jharkhand HC pronounced judgments in 75 criminal appeals — 11 of those were reserved for judgment in 2024, and the rest in 2025. The oldest reserved case, from Septemeber 30, 2024, an appeal from 2005 involving rape accused, was disposed of with an acquittal on April 28.
Of the 75 verdicts, 19 criminal appeals had been reserved by benches headed by Justice Ananda Sen. On April 28, Justice Ananda Sen pronounced the maximum verdicts in a day, in nine appeals. On April 24, a day after the SC rap, Justice Sen-headed bench pronounced the verdict in eight appeals.
On April 28, a division bench of Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Arun Kumar Rai listed 15 appeals, including death sentence reference pleas, for judgment. Of these, the bench pronounced the verdict in 12, while postponing two for pronouncement to May 1.
The SC petition by the four convicts also stated that apart from them, there are 10 other convicts in the same situation before the Jharkhand HC, where their appeals have been heard but judgments have not been pronounced “for approximately three years”.
Story continues below this ad
In the case of the 10 other convicts, appeals filed between 2014-2019, judgments were reserved between January 2022 and June 2022, where judgments remain to be pronounced, even three years later. The convicts in these appeals have undergone incarceration ranging from 7 to 14 years. Cases of two petitioners before the SC have been listed for orders on May 5.
Delay in pronouncing judgments has been a key area of concern in tackling the pendency of cases. In a 2001 ruling in Anil Rai versus the State of Bihar, SC had issued guidelines requiring a mention of dates when a judgment is reserved and finally pronounced in the order for accountability.
The guidelines also state that if the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within six months, “any of the parties of the said shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief Justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other Bench for fresh arguments”, with adjudication of such application left to the Chief Justice.
Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court
Professional Profile
Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express.
Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare).
Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others.
She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020.
With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram
Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025)
Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles:
High-Profile Case Coverage
She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots.
She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy.
Signature Style
Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system.
X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More
