Jharkhand High Court Resolves Long-Pending Cases in a Week Following SC Appeal on Death Row Convicts

Swift Summary:

• The Jharkhand High Court recently resolved 10 cases involving convicts,including six on death row,after delays prompted the Supreme Court’s intervention.
• On July 14, the Supreme Court agreed to examine complaints of delay in reserved judgments.
• The convictions and sentences of Amit kumar Das and Basant Kumar mahto (life convicts) where overturned. Das was released while Mahto remained imprisoned due to non-uploaded judgment; the court directed his release on bail.
• Nirmal Bhengra (life convict) had his appeal dismissed; legal aid was ordered for potential remedy or remission.
• Death row convict Nitesh Sahu’s appeal was dismissed; legal services were instructed to assist him with remedies or clemency applications.
• A split verdict occurred in the case of death row convicts Sanatan Baski and Sukhlal Murmu, which was referred to a third judge. The Chief Justice of jharkhand HC has been requested for expedited resolution.
• Appeals by three other death row convicts (Gandhi Oraon, Rohit Rai, Bandhan Oraon) were dismissed; assistance for appeals or pleas for remission was mandated by SC backers like state legal authorities.
• Reports from nationwide high courts on long-pending judgments have been solicited by the Supreme Court for assessment by September 22.

Indian Opinion Analysis:

The recent intervention highlights gaps within India’s judicial processes concerning delayed pronouncement of judgments. While ensuring justice is paramount, years-long delays can erode trust in institutional efficiency and adversely impact lives involved-especially in severe consequences such as life imprisonment or capital punishment.The directives from the Supreme Court underscore pressing governance issues within high court operations across states. This could potentially pave the way for stricter guidelines around judgment timelines. Such measures may strengthen accountability but also invite attention toward addressing systemic reasons behind bottlenecks-including staffing constraints or workload imbalances-as part of a broader reform discussion.

Cases such as those in Jharkhand reveal an urgent need not merely for remedial action but larger restructuring efforts across India’s judicial framework aimed at timely justice delivery without compromising fairness.Read more: The Hindu