SC frowns upon Jharkhand HC for not pronouncing verdict in criminal cases, seeks report from all HCs
_vb_42.jpeg)
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Monday expressed surprise that the Jharkhand High Court has not pronounced verdicts in 67 criminal appeals after reserving judgement and asked all high courts to submit report in a month on cases where judgements are pending.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh termed the development as "disturbing", and said it will law down some mandatory guidelines on the issue.
"This cannot be allowed to happen," the bench said, as it sought reports from all the high courts in four weeks on cases where judgement has been reserved on or before January 31, 2025 but verdict has not been pronounced till date.
The top court passed the directions after perusing the report filed by registrar general of the Jharkhand High Court in which it said in 56 criminal appeals heard by division bench from January, 2022 till December, 2024, the verdict has not been pronounced despite order being reserved.
It also noted that before the single bench judge, judgement has not been pronounced in 11 criminal appeals despite order being reserved.
The top court was hearing a plea of four life convicts, who have approached through advocate Fauzia Shakil, claiming that the Jharkhand high court had reserved orders on their appeals against conviction in 2022 but did not pronounce verdicts due to which they were not able to claim the benefit of remission.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
ADM responds in Hindi: U'khand HC asks if person who can't speak English control executive position
Nainital, Jul 26 (PTI): The Uttarakhand High Court has asked two top officials of the state to find out whether an officer who has no knowledge of English can effectively control an executive position after an additional district magistrate responded in Hindi during the hearing of a PIL.
When the division bench of Chief Justice Guhanathan Narendar and Justice Alok Mahra asked why he chose Hindi instead of English, the official said while he could understand the language he was unable to speak it fluently.
At this, the bench asked the State Election Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to find out whether an officer of ADM (Additional District Magistrate) level, who has no knowledge of English, can effectively control an executive position.
The ADM concerned is also the electoral registration officer of Nainital.
The high court asked the state election commissioner and the Chief Secretary to appear before it via video conferencing at the next hearing of the PIL on July 28 to respond to the query.
The situation arose during the hearing of the PIL questioning the inclusion of names of outsiders in the voter list for panchayat elections in Budhlakot gram sabha of Nainital district.
Taking a strict stance on the issue, the high court questioned the State Election Commission on the criteria used for the inclusion of such individuals in the voter list.
The court asked on what basis these individuals were identified as residents of the area.
The election officer, who appeared personally before the court, informed that the names were identified based on the family register.
However, the court observed that under the Panchayati Raj Act, birth and death certificates are considered more important documents than the family register.
So far, more than 25 petitions challenging various issues related to the panchayat elections have been filed. Notably, Akash Bora, a resident of Budhlakot, filed the PIL stating that 82 names in the village's voter list belonged to people from outside the area, most of whom are from the state of Odisha and other places.
When he complained to the SDM, a fact-finding committee was constituted, which found that 18 individuals listed were indeed outsiders.
However, even after the final voter list was released, the names of these 18 individuals were not removed.
After filing the PIL, the petitioner also submitted a list of 30 more such individuals to the court.
However, despite repeated complaints, no action has been taken, the PIL said.
The list includes names of outsiders from places such as Haldwani, Nainital, Odisha, Delhi and Haridwar.
