The Supreme Court on Tuesday asserted that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is not only intended to protect ongoing trials from indefinite imprisonment but also to ensure timely justice for victims and their families, as it expressed concern over the long wait for criminal trials in Jammu and Kashmir.
Hearing a matter of delay in a murder trial, the bench said it was “extremely disappointed” to learn that as many as 351 court hearings, involving 585 accused, in Utah had remained pending for more than five years. What particularly disturbed the court was that most of these cases – 235 in total – were still stuck at the stage of recording the oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, indicating a systematic delay in the conduct of the trials.
The court stressed that the right to a speedy trial, which stems from Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be viewed narrowly as a guarantee for the accused only. “The whole idea of initiating this process is to ensure that trials do not remain in prison for an indefinite period of time. Victims also deserve speedy justice. We have often observed that justice should not only be done to the accused person. Justice should also be done to the victims and the relatives and relatives of the victims,” the bench observed.
This issue was raised after the court last month granted bail to a defendant in a murder case after noting that his trial had been suspended for more than seven years and that the prosecution had been able to interrogate only seven witnesses during this period. Irked by the delay, the bench then ordered the Principal Home Minister of Jammu and Kashmir to appear before it and note down the details of the criminal trials in which the accused were in custody for more than five years.
In response to the numbers related to pending cases, the Commission wondered why such a large number of trials remained unresolved for so long. It noted that once charges are laid in a criminal case, lower courts are expected to record evidence and conclude the proceedings expeditiously. She asked, “What are the courts doing? The accused has been in prison for five years, and his trial has not ended. This is a very dangerous matter.”
The court noted that the main factor behind the delay appeared to be the inability of prosecuting agencies to present witnesses before the lower courts. The bench said such a situation could not be justified. He added: “Why can’t you bring witnesses to record oral testimonies? Is it the failure of the investigating agency to bring witnesses that is causing the delay? We must know, we must go to the root of the problem.”
The bench also sought to understand whether structural deficiencies in the justice delivery system were contributing to the delay. She wondered whether Utah faced a shortage of trial courts, judges or prosecutors. The court noted that it is difficult to accept the fact that the administration is unable to ensure the attendance of prosecution witnesses in court, as submitting witnesses for cross-examination is ultimately the responsibility of the prosecution agencies.
Although the Supreme Court cited the disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the bench noted that while some delays during that period were understandable, the continued stagnation of trials after several years did not make sense.
The court also noted that the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Courts could have intervened earlier to address the delay in the conduct of the trials.
In order to understand the issue more comprehensively, the bench directed the UT administration to submit more details before it on the next date of hearing. The court asked the authorities to provide information on each of the cases pending at the evidentiary stage, including the date on which charges were brought, the number of witnesses named in the indictment, the number actually examined, and the dates on which the witnesses were last examined at the trials. The court also requested an explanation for the delay in presenting witnesses and an estimate of the potential time needed to complete the trials.
The court described this process as a “pilot study” and noted that the information would help identify systemic deficiencies responsible for prolonged delays in criminal trials.
Meanwhile, the court directed the Principal Home Secretary to take the matter seriously and hold discussions with the authorities concerned to devise a plan to expedite the pending cases. “We must have some way to address the problem of delay in concluding the trial,” the bench said. The official assured the court that the matter will be studied urgently and steps will be taken in coordination with the relevant agencies to address the delay.
The matter will now be taken up after the UT provides the additional information requested by the court.
