SC asks HCs to create dashboard on websites giving details of verdicts delivered
_vb_19.jpeg)
New Delhi (PTI): To enhance transparency and accountability, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed all the high courts in the country to create a dashboard on their websites giving details of judgements reserved after January 31, verdicts pronounced, and the date of uploading on their platforms.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, which has taken a critical view of several high courts, including the Jharkhand High Court, not delivering verdicts in both criminal and civil cases for years together after hearing the final arguments and reserving their decisions, said this data should be in public domain.
"Let everyone know how many judgements were reserved, in how many cases orders were passed and on which date the decision was uploaded on the high court website," Justice Kant said.
Concurring with Justice Kant, Justice Bagchi said, "Creating a dashboard or a separate window on the high court's website will show the accountability of the judiciary towards the people".
The top court was hearing a batch of pleas of which one, filed initially by several death row and life convicts through advocate Fauzia Shakil, complained to the top court that the Jharkhand High Court did not deliver judgements for couple of years on their appeals against conviction and sentence, after hearing the final arguments and reserving the decisions.
However, immediately after the apex court's nudge, the Jharkhand High Court delivered the verdicts in their matter and most of them were acquitted of their charges.
Similarly, other convicts lodged in different jails of Jharkhand also approached the top court seeking similar directions.
The bench then expanded the scope of the litigation and sought details of such cases from all the high courts, where judgements were not pronounced for months even after reserving the decisions.
On Wednesday, Shakil, appointed amicus curiae in the matter, pointed out that seven high courts have not submitted their details, while the rest have submitted their reports and the data is being compiled.
The bench took serious note of the submissions, and directed the high courts of Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Patna, Jammu-Kashmir and Ladakh, Kerala, Telangana, and Gauhati to file their reports within two weeks or their registrar general will be physically present on the next date of hearing.
It also asked the high courts to give their suggestions on improving dissemination of information to the general public, so that pan-India guidelines can be formulated.
It also asked them to highlight their concerns or apprehensions or difficulties, if any, on release of such information on judgements delivered to the general public.
Justice Kant observed that the data to be displayed on the websites will not be person or case specific and would only give the total number of cases in which judgements were reserved from January 31 onwards till October 31, 2025, number of cases in which judgements were delivered during the period, and on which date the verdicts were uploaded on the high court's website.
On September 22, the top court lamented some high court judges being unable to "deliver on their tasks" and called for their "performance evaluation".
The top court said though it did not want to act like a "school principal" for the high court judges, but there ought to be a self-management system to ensure "files don't pile up on their desks".
It stressed on "performance evaluation" but underlined the question of parameters and guidelines guiding the process.
Justice Kant had pointed out that some judges have the habit of adjourning cases unnecessarily, and said it could be dangerous for the image of the judges as has been the case with some of them in the past.
On August 8, in another case, the top court suggested the Jharkhand High Court judges to take leave for writing pending verdicts after observing that there were 61 cases in which judgements weren't pronounced.
Earlier, during the hearing in the instant case, on May 13, the top court called for a performance audit of high court judges observing that some of them were taking breaks "unnecessarily".
It said the top court was receiving several complaints against high court judges and it was high time to assess the expenditure on them vis-a-vis their output.
The top court had earlier termed the issue raised by the life and death row convicts in Jharkhand of "paramount importance" that "goes to the root of the criminal justice system".
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.
HC quashes order staying proceedings against Anil Ambani to classify his bank accounts as fraud
Mumbai (PTI): In a setback to industrialist Anil Ambani, the Bombay High Court on Monday quashed a single bench interim order that stayed proceedings initiated against him and Reliance Communications Ltd to classify their bank accounts as fraud.
A division bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad allowed the appeals filed by three public sector banks and auditor firm BDO India LLP against the December 2025 interim order passed by a single bench of the HC.
The division bench, while quashing the single bench order, termed it "illegal and perverse".
ALSO READ: Shirtless protest at AI Summit: Delhi Police nabs Youth Congress worker in Gwalior, total arrests 5
Ambani's counsels sought the HC to stay its order so that they could approach the Supreme Court, but the request was declined.
The banks last month challenged a December 2025 single-bench order granting interim relief to Ambani and his company. The order had cited violations of mandatory RBI rules and a classic case of banks "waking up from deep slumber" after years.
The single bench order stayed all present and future action by Indian Overseas Bank, IDBI Bank and Bank of Baroda, noting that the action was based on a legally flawed forensic audit and violated the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) mandatory guidelines.
The three banks in their appeal said the forensic audit, which led to accounts being classified as "fraud", was legally valid and based on serious findings of fund siphoning and misutilisation.
This was recorded in the report submitted by the audit firm BDO LLP, they contended.
The banks, in their plea, also said Ambani had raised a technical challenge to the forensic audit before the single bench.
They sought the division bench to quash the single bench's interim order, claiming it was "perverse".
Ambani had challenged before the single bench show-cause notices issued by the Indian Overseas Bank, IDBI and Bank of Baroda, seeking to declare his and Reliance Communications' accounts as fraud accounts.
As an interim relief, he sought a stay of the notices and an injunction against any coercive action on the ground that BDO LLP was not qualified to conduct the forensic audit as its signatory was not a chartered accountant.
BDO LLP was an accounting consultant firm and not an audit firm, Ambani claimed.
The single bench had agreed with Ambani and stayed the action by the banks.
