The Supreme Court has something to say on the efficient and speedy disposal of cases..In a batch of petitions where the appellants were denied bail pending trial/appeal and had been in custody for a long time, a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit have made some observations of value. The Right to Speedy trial under Article 21, which is honoured more in breach, is the subject of the order in question..The Bench, while elucidating upon the rights to fair trial being an inseparable part of Article 21, has observed that,.“Decision of cases of undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial – vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of infrastructure is another handicap. .In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in the state of helplessness.”.The judgment also deplores what it calls “the obstruction of Court proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers” by noting,.“In view of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India, such suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in while periodically say once in two/three months and not frequently.”.The Bench called for an overhaul of the functioning of the judicial system, observing, that as far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks. It was also stated that posting of suitable officers as Session Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates would go a long way in dealing with the situation and “non-performers/dead wood must be weeded out”..Quite interestingly, the Supreme Court has also suggested that a provision in Bangladeshi law be considered. Reference was made to Section 339B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 of Bangladesh, so as to combat delay in trials on account of the accused absconding during trial..The section provides for “trial in absentia”, by suggesting that an order be published in at least two newspapers, with a view to directing an absconding person to appear before the Court within the period specified. In case of non-compliance, he may be tried in his absence..The Court also goes on to cite previous decisions which suggest, inter alia, doing away with liberal adjournments, fast-tracking of criminal cases, disposing of cases in which proceedings were stayed preferably within six months from the date of stay orders..ASG Atmaram Nadkarni appeared in the matter, and Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra was appointed Amicus Curiae..Both suggested that monitoring by all High Courts is necessary to ensure minimizing adjournments at all levels, taking steps to remove obstacles in speedy trials including setting up of adequate number of laboratories, use of video conferencing to examine scientific experts or otherwise, appointment of public prosecutors, compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C. by scanning/digitizing police reports, introduce system for electronic service of summons (wherever necessary), issuing timelines for disposal of bail matters at all levels..It has also been suggested that suitable amendments ought to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure for permitting tendering evidence of medical witnesses on the pattern of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The Court did not issue further directions, in light of the earlier decisions, but left the monitoring and implementation to the concerned High Courts..A direction was also issued to the High Courts to consider a few suggestions for swift disposal of cases, some of which are listed below..Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years;Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;If an undertrial has been in custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded, such undertrial must be released on personal bonds.It also asked the High Courts to have an appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side, as well as on the judicial side, for speeding up cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts..Read the judgment below:
The Supreme Court has something to say on the efficient and speedy disposal of cases..In a batch of petitions where the appellants were denied bail pending trial/appeal and had been in custody for a long time, a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit have made some observations of value. The Right to Speedy trial under Article 21, which is honoured more in breach, is the subject of the order in question..The Bench, while elucidating upon the rights to fair trial being an inseparable part of Article 21, has observed that,.“Decision of cases of undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial – vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of infrastructure is another handicap. .In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in the state of helplessness.”.The judgment also deplores what it calls “the obstruction of Court proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers” by noting,.“In view of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India, such suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in while periodically say once in two/three months and not frequently.”.The Bench called for an overhaul of the functioning of the judicial system, observing, that as far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks. It was also stated that posting of suitable officers as Session Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates would go a long way in dealing with the situation and “non-performers/dead wood must be weeded out”..Quite interestingly, the Supreme Court has also suggested that a provision in Bangladeshi law be considered. Reference was made to Section 339B of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 of Bangladesh, so as to combat delay in trials on account of the accused absconding during trial..The section provides for “trial in absentia”, by suggesting that an order be published in at least two newspapers, with a view to directing an absconding person to appear before the Court within the period specified. In case of non-compliance, he may be tried in his absence..The Court also goes on to cite previous decisions which suggest, inter alia, doing away with liberal adjournments, fast-tracking of criminal cases, disposing of cases in which proceedings were stayed preferably within six months from the date of stay orders..ASG Atmaram Nadkarni appeared in the matter, and Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra was appointed Amicus Curiae..Both suggested that monitoring by all High Courts is necessary to ensure minimizing adjournments at all levels, taking steps to remove obstacles in speedy trials including setting up of adequate number of laboratories, use of video conferencing to examine scientific experts or otherwise, appointment of public prosecutors, compliance of Section 207/208 Cr.P.C. by scanning/digitizing police reports, introduce system for electronic service of summons (wherever necessary), issuing timelines for disposal of bail matters at all levels..It has also been suggested that suitable amendments ought to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure for permitting tendering evidence of medical witnesses on the pattern of Section 293 Cr.P.C. The Court did not issue further directions, in light of the earlier decisions, but left the monitoring and implementation to the concerned High Courts..A direction was also issued to the High Courts to consider a few suggestions for swift disposal of cases, some of which are listed below..Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years;Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;If an undertrial has been in custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded, such undertrial must be released on personal bonds.It also asked the High Courts to have an appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side, as well as on the judicial side, for speeding up cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts..Read the judgment below:
