'Some Take Too Many Breaks': Supreme Court Orders Performance Review Of Judges
Last Updated:
The Supreme Court voiced its concern while hearing a plea from four life convicts belonging to Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes communities.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday voiced the need for a comprehensive performance audit to assess the functioning of judges, citing a growing number of complaints regarding the efficiency of High Court judges.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice NK Singh orally noted that while many judges demonstrate diligent work ethics, concerns have arisen about others who frequently take unnecessary breaks, prompting questions about their effective utilization of court time.
'There are some judges who work very hard, but at the same time, there are judges who are unnecessarily taking coffee breaks; this break or that break. What is for lunch hour, etc. We are hearing a lot of complaints about the High Court judges. This is a larger issue which needs to be looked into. What is the performance of the High Court judges? How much we are spending and what is the output? It's high time we do a performance audit," the Court said as per Bar and Bench.
The Supreme Court voiced its concern while hearing a plea from four life convicts belonging to Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Classes communities. These individuals alleged that the Jharkhand High Court had failed to pronounce judgments on their criminal appeals for an extended period of two to three years after reserving them.
The Court had previously sought information regarding the status of these long-pending cases. On May 5, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to submit reports detailing cases where judgments remained pending despite the matters being reserved. Continuing its scrutiny, the Supreme Court reiterated the paramount importance of this issue, suggesting the potential issuance of guidelines to ensure the timely delivery of judgments. The Court emphasized that the matter directly impacts the fundamental principles of the criminal justice system.
On May 9, Supreme Court took further steps which included a request for reports from High Courts specifying the dates of judgment pronouncement and their subsequent publication on court websites.
'It seems that the issues noticed in the above mentioned orders would require and deeper analysis and mandatory guidelines by this Court, so that convicts or undertrials aren't compelled to lose faith in the justice delivery system and to avoid the petitions like one in present case," it noted.
First Published:
May 14, 2025, 11:59 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
21 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's lawyer says no immediate deportations under birthright citizenship order, as judges to decide on challenges
Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Also Read: US Supreme Court may rule on allowing enforcement of Trump birthright citizenship limits Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Popular in NRI Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads President Donald Trump 's administration will not deport children deemed ineligible for US citizenship until his executive order curtailing birthright citizenship takes effect on July 27, a government lawyer said on Monday after being pressed by two federal separate hearings in lawsuits challenging Trump's order, US District Judges Deborah Boardman in Greenbelt, Maryland, and Joseph LaPlante in Concord, New Hampshire, set expedited schedules to decide whether the order can be blocked again on grounds that the US Supreme Court 's ruling on Friday curbing the ability of judges to impede his policies nationwide does not preclude injunctions in class action judges asked US Department of Justice lawyer Brad Rosenberg, who represented the government in both cases, for assurances that the Trump administration would not move to deport children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or legal permanent resident at least until the executive order takes said it would not, which Boardman and LaPlante respectively asked him to confirm in writing by Tuesday and the Maryland case, immigrant rights advocates revised their lawsuit just a few hours after the 6-3 conservative majority US Supreme Court on Friday ruled in their case and two others challenging Trump's executive order. The New Hampshire lawsuit, a proposed class action, was filed on Supreme Court ruling did not address the merits or legality of Trump's birthright citizenship order, but instead curbed the ability of judges to issue "universal" injunctions to block the Republican president's policies while the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to issue injunctions that cover anyone other than the parties appearing before them, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's opinion held out the possibility that opponents of a federal policy could still obtain the same type of relief if they instead pursued cases as class Powell, a lawyer for immigration rights groups and pregnant non-citizen mothers pursuing the case, told Boardman at a hearing on Monday that an immediate ruling was necessary to address the fears and concerns migrants now face as a result of the Supreme Court's decision."They want to see how fast we can get class relief because they are afraid about their children and their babies and what their status might be," Powell executive order, which he issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" Friday's ruling, the high court narrowed the scope of the three injunctions issued by federal judges in three states, including Boardman, that prevented enforcement of his directive nationwide while litigation challenging the policy played judges had blocked the policy after siding with Democratic-led states and immigrant rights advocates who argued it violated the citizenship clause of the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to recognize that virtually anyone born in the United States is a rights advocates in the hours after the Supreme Court ruled swiftly launched two separate bids in Maryland and New Hampshire to have judges grant class-wide relief on behalf of any children nationally who would be deemed ineligible for birthright citizenship under Trump's Supreme Court specified the core part of Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. Boardman on Monday pressed Rosenberg on what it could do before then."Just to get to the heart of it, I want to know if the government thinks that it can start removing children from the United States who are subject to the terms of the executive order," Boardman said at the end of the scheduled further briefing in the case to continue through July 9, with a ruling to follow. LaPlante scheduled a hearing for July said the Trump administration objected to the plaintiffs' attempt to obtain the same relief through a class action. He stood by the administration's view of the constitutionality of Trump's order."It is the position of the United States government that birthright citizenship is not guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
Mother of all land scams? Punjab mother-son duo allegedly sold off a whole defence airstrip
A land fraud case of staggering proportions has come to the fore in Punjab, where a mother-son duo has sold off not just any plot of land but an entire defence airstrip, the Times of India reported on July 1. Usha Ansal and Naveen Chand , the mother and son in question, have been accused of selling a World War II-era airstrip. This airstrip, located in Fattuwala village near the Pakistan border, was previously used by the Indian Air Force (IAF) during multiple wars, including the 1962, 1965, and 1971 ones. As the investigation unfolds, the case raises grave concerns about how such significant land can be misappropriated and the implications it holds for national security. The repercussions of this alleged scam are likely to reverberate through various levels of government and military oversight. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Bank-Seized Cars in the Philippines at Prices You Won't Believe! SUV Deals | Search Ads Search Now Undo Long legal war The allegations date back to 1997, when the two allegedly colluded with revenue officials to claim ownership and sell the land fraudulently. Following a directive from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB) has been tasked with investigating these serious allegations. The report, which has led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), was filed on June 20. Live Events The FIR cites multiple charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The case first came to light through a complaint by Nishan Singh, a retired revenue official. Despite his efforts, the matter remained pending without any action until 2021, when the commandant of Halwara Air Force Station urged a probe into the sale of the land. Following lingering inaction, Nishan Singh sought the intervention of the High Court, leading to greater scrutiny of the situation. Major implications Justice Harjit Singh Brar of the High Court has been vocal about the implications of the case, pointing out the potential threat to national security. He called for the VB chief director to verify the allegations personally and to report back within four weeks. The court highlighted that the original owner of the land had passed away in 1991, yet fraudulent sale deeds surfaced in 1997, listing other individuals as owners, despite the military never transferring the land to them. In May 2025, after persistent legal efforts, the land was finally restored to the Ministry of Defence. The investigation, now led by DSP Karan Sharma, is now looking to uncover the full extent of the scam and identify all individuals involved in this long-concealed fraud concerning strategic defence land.
Indian Express
31 minutes ago
- Indian Express
MP High Court orders NTA to conduct NEET UG 2025 retest for petitioners affected by power outage at Indore, Ujjain centres
The Madhya Pradesh High Court Monday directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to conduct a retest of NEET UG 2025 for candidates affected by a power outage at examination centres in Indore and Ujjain, as per Live Law. Justice Subodh Abhyankar, hearing a batch of writ petitions filed by the aggrieved candidates, ruled in favour of the students, stating that they were placed at a disadvantage due to circumstances beyond their control. The Court observed that the unequal conditions violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality. 'This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners, without any fault on their part, were subjected to disadvantageous conditions due to the power outage, which was not the case for others — even at the same centre where some students were seated in spots with sufficient natural light,' the order stated. To better understand the petitioners' plight, the judge even conducted part of the hearing in darkness by turning off the courtroom lights. He noted that while the courtroom had large windows allowing some natural light, such conditions might not have existed at the exam centres. The Court also clarified that only students who filed petitions before June 3, 2025 (the date the provisional answer key was published) are eligible for the relief. The counselling process will be subject to the outcome of the re-test, the HC said adding that the petitioners' ranks will be determined solely based on their performance in the re-test. NEET UG 2025 was held on May 4 and the results were declared on June 14. As many as 12,36,531 candidates cleared the exam this year. More than half of those who appeared for the exam were female candidates, while 58% or 7.22 lakh candidates who qualified were female. Among the States, the highest number of candidates who qualified were from Uttar Pradesh (1,70,684), followed by Maharashtra (1,25,727), Rajasthan (1,19,865), Karnataka (83,582) and Bihar (80,954).
