Supreme Court Seeks Reports From High Courts On Pendency Of Criminal Appeals

The Supreme Court recently directed all High Courts to submit detailed reports on the pendency of criminal appeals, seeking comprehensive data on cases pending before Single Judges and Division Benches, including a bifurcation based on the bail status of the accused.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed this order in a suo moto petition on policy strategy for grant of bail to convicts whose appeals are pending for a long time. In this case, the court is dealing with the issue of remission, bail, and delay in disposal of criminal appeals in High Courts.

Recently, the Court passed comprehensive directions on remission of life convicts holding that states must consider premature release of eligible convicts even without their applications.

“The learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae has submitted a detailed note about the status of pendency of Criminal Appeals in the High Courts. Before we consider the note, we need to have a comprehensive data. We, therefore, direct the Registrar Generals of all the High Courts to submit a detailed report to this Court giving details of pendency of Criminal Appeals as under:

1) Number of appeals against conviction pending before the Single Judges and the Division Benches;

2) Further bifurcation of appeals against conviction into two categories (i) where accused have been granted bail and (ii) where accused have not been granted bail; and

3) The data regarding the appeals against acquittal pending before the Single Judges and the Division Benches”, the Court observed.

The Supreme Court instructed the Registrar (Judicial) to immediately communicate the order to the Registrar Generals of all High Courts. The required data is to be submitted within one month.

The Court scheduled the matter for further consideration on March 24, 2025.

This order follows a detailed note submitted by Amici Curiae Liz Matthew and Gaurav Agrawal, which highlighted the pendency of 7,58,510 criminal appeals across 25 High Courts, as per data from National Judicial Data Grid.

As per the note, the highest pendency was recorded in the Allahabad High Court with 2,33,909 cases, followed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (1,15,357), Punjab and Haryana High Court (82,384), Rajasthan High Court (61,342), and Patna High Court (44,143). The lowest pendency was observed in the Tripura High Court, which had zero pending appeals. The note also provided an age-wise analysis of the pending appeals, revealing substantial delays in disposal.

Recently, taking note of the high pendency of criminal matters in the High Courts, the Supreme Court had relaxed the conditions for the appointment of retired judges as ad-hoc judges at the High Courts.

The Court has on many occasions sought data from various High Courts in order to address the pendency of appeals.

The Supreme Court on March 31, 2017, in Ramu and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to provide particulars of criminal appeals pending year-wise, disposal statistics of the last 10 years, and the causes for delays. The order also called for steps to accelerate disposals and a mechanism to oversee the process.

On September 4, 2017, in Lawyers for Justice v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., the Supreme Court ordered the Registrar General of the Madhya Pradesh High Court to provide details of criminal appeals, including the number of pending appeals, those involving life imprisonment, and the duration of pendency.

In Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P., the Court suggested steps to address the pendency of criminal appeals.

In Dayalu Kashyap v. State of Chhattisgarh, SLP (Crl.) 514/2021, the Supreme Court on October 6, 2021, directed the High Court Legal Services Committees to ensure that convicts represented by legal aid advocates do not face delays in the hearing of appeals. It also recommended that convicts who had served more than half the sentence for fixed-term sentences or eight years for life sentences should be considered for bail. The Court suggested exploring the possibility of disposal of appeals on the basis of the sentence undergone, with a similar exercise recommended for life sentence cases where remission was possible​.

On February 9, 2022, in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court adopted the directions from Dayalu Kashyap and further considered releasing individuals who had either served half the sentence or were in custody for half the sentence during the trial. This was aimed at allowing the judicial system to focus on more serious cases.

Thereafter, in Suleman v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court on March 25, 2022, called for a report from the Registrar of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the availability of criminal benches​. On May 9, 2022, the Court expressed concern over long pendency and directed the State Government to take a stand on appeals pending for over 10 years. It recommended considering bail for convicts in single-offence cases pending for more than 10 years and the remission of sentences for those meeting the norms, irrespective of the pendency of appeals​.

Case no. – SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Case Title – In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail

Click Here To Read/Download Order