The Supreme Court has expressed displeasure over the inability to complete the work of some High Court judges and has spoken about performance evidence. The court said that if a judge is hearing a criminal case in a day, he cannot expect to decide in 50 cases, but if a judge says that he will hear only one bail plea in a day, then he needs to assess.

According to PTI reports, the bench of Justice Suryakant and Justice N. Kotishwar Singh was hearing the petitions that were filed by some convicts found for life imprisonment and death penalty. He alleged that the Jharkhand High Court has not pronounced the decision on his criminal appeals, despite keeping the faasy safe for years. However, the High Court later ruled in his case and acquitted many convicts.

The Supreme Court said that it does not want to work like a school prince for high courts, but should have a self-mausing system to ensure that he does not have piles of files on the table. The court said, ‘There are also judges who work day and night and are disposing of the cases brilliantly, but there are some judges who are unfortunately unable to complete the work. Whatever the reason, good or bad, we do not know and maybe there may be some situations.

The Supreme Court said, ‘Suppose a judge is hearing a criminal appeal, so we do not expect him to decide on 50 cases in a day. Deciding on a criminal appeal in a day is a huge achievement in itself, but in the case of bail, if a judge says that I will decide only on a bail plea in a day, then it is a matter for which there is a need to do self -evaluation.

The Supreme Court said, ‘Our intention is not to act like a school principal and there should be extensive guidelines, so that the judges know what they have and how much they have to do. There is a legitimate hope of the general public from the judiciary.

Advocate Fauzia Shakeel, who appeared in the case, presented a chart on the position of the decisions given by various High Courts and emphasized that some High Courts have not provided data in the prescribed format. The bench asked him to file the high court figures within two weeks, where the cases were reserved. Also, directed to upload the date of announcement of decisions and the date of uploading them. Senior Advocate Ajit Sinha was asked to assist in the matter.

Justice Suryakant said that some high courts have a habit of unnecessarily postponed cases. He also said that it can be dangerous for the image of the judges, as has happened with some judges in the past.

Hearing a case, the Supreme Court said that the High Courts should act like parents for their judicial officers. The Supreme Court has made this comment during the hearing on the petition of a female judge, in which he has demanded a transfer citing the education of the son.

According to the report of the Bar and Bench, the court said that the petition filed by the judge regarding the transfer is not a matter of facility, but is related to the need for his son’s education. The court also told the Jharkhand High Court that instead of adopting an egoistic attitude, the plea of ​​the transfer of a female judge should be seen with decency.

The bench of Chief Justice Bhushan Ramakrishna Gavai and Vinod Chandran of Justice, taking cognizance of the petition of an additional District Judge (ADJ) related to the scheduled caste class, said, “High courts will have to be aware of the problems of their judicial officers.”

The court was told that Petitioner One Single Mother Are and they have demanded to transfer themselves in a district where the school has a good facility so that it Judicial work Can also continue and help the son. His son has a 12th board examination next year.

The woman judge had moved the Supreme Court challenging the rejection of the six -month -old child care holiday request. He was later transferred to Dumka. He presented an representation in the High Court seeking to continue service in Hazaribagh or to be shifted to Ranchi or Bokaro. He claimed that Dumka does not have good CBSE schools.

Chief Justice BR Gavai said, “The High Court should act like the parents of its judicial officers and should not make such issues an issue of ego.” The Supreme Court said, “Now you either move them to Bokaro or let it stay in Hazaribagh till March/April 2026 … I mean until the exams are over.” The High Court was given two weeks to follow the instructions.

In May, the Supreme Court sought a reply from the Jharkhand Government and the High Court Registry on the petition of the judicial officer, challenging the rejecting of their child care holiday. The woman judicial officer sought a six -month leave from June to December.

The Supreme Court asked the Jharkhand High Court to allow a single parent women judicial officer to stay in Hazaribagh or transfer Bokaro keeping in mind the 12th grade examinations of their son. As per the child care holiday rules applied to judicial officers, ADJ is entitled to a holiday up to 730 days during its tenure. Later, he was discharged for three months.