E-Paper
Guarantee for speedy trials also ensures timely justice: SC
The SC stressed the need for speedy trials in Jammu and Kashmir, citing concerns over 351 unresolved cases, emphasizing justice for victims and accused.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday emphasised that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial is meant not only to protect undertrials from indefinite incarceration but also to ensure timely justice for victims and their families, as it expressed concern over the prolonged pendency of criminal trials in Jammu and Kashmir.
Hearing a matter relating to delays in a murder trial, a bench of the court said that it was “extremely disappointed” to learn that as many as 351 sessions trials, involving 585 accused people, in the UT have remained pending for more than five years. What particularly troubled the court was that most of these cases — 235 in all — are still stuck at the stage of recording oral evidence of prosecution witnesses, pointing to systemic delays in the conduct of trials.
The court underlined that the right to a speedy trial, which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution, cannot be viewed narrowly as a safeguard only for the accused. “The whole idea in initiating this exercise is to ensure that undertrials do not languish in jail for an indefinite period of time. The victims also deserve speedy justice. Many times, we have observed that justice should not only be done to the accused person. Justice is also to be done to the victims and the kin and kith of the victims,” the bench observed.
The issue came up after the court last month granted bail to an accused in a murder case after noting that his trial had been pending for more than seven years and that the prosecution had managed to examine only seven witnesses during this period. Disturbed by the delay, the bench had then directed the principal home secretary of J&K to appear before it and place on record details of criminal trials in which accused persons have been in custody for more than five years.
Reacting to the figures on pendency of cases, the bench questioned why such a large number of trials had remained unresolved for so long. It observed that once charges are framed in a criminal case, trial courts are expected to record evidence and conclude proceedings expeditiously. “What are the trial courts doing? The accused is in jail past five years, his trial is not concluded. That is something very serious,” it lamented.
The court indicated that a key factor behind the delays appeared to be the inability of prosecuting agencies to produce witnesses before the trial courts. Such a situation, the bench said, could hardly be justified. “Why are you not able to produce the witnesses for recording the oral testimonies? Is it the failure of the investigating agency to produce witnesses that is causing the delay? We should know, we should go to the root of the problem,” it added.
The bench also sought to understand whether structural deficiencies in the justice delivery system were contributing to the delays. It asked whether the UT was facing shortages of trial courts, judges or public prosecutors. The court remarked that it was difficult to accept that the administration was unable to ensure the presence of prosecution witnesses in court, since producing witnesses for examination was ultimately the responsibility of the prosecuting agencies.
Although the UT referred to disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, the bench observed that while some delay during that period was understandable, the continued stagnation of trials several years later made little sense.
The court also remarked that the high court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh could have intervened earlier to address the delays in the progress of trials.
In order to understand the problem more comprehensively, the bench directed the UT administration to place further details before it on the next date of hearing. The court asked the authorities to provide information about each of the cases pending at the evidence stage, including the date on which charges were framed, the number of witnesses cited in the chargesheet, the number actually examined, and the dates when witnesses were last examined in the trials. The court also sought an explanation for delays in producing witnesses and an estimate of the likely time required to complete the trials.
Describing the exercise as a “pilot study,” the bench indicated that the information would help identify systemic shortcomings responsible for prolonged delays in criminal trials.
At the same time, the court directed the principal home secretary to take the matter seriously and convene discussions with the concerned authorities to evolve a plan for expediting pending cases. “We must have some modality by which the problem of delay in the conclusion of the trial is taken care of,” the bench said. The official assured the court that the issue would be examined urgently and that steps would be taken in coordination with the relevant agencies to address the delays.
The matter will now be taken up after the UT files the additional information sought by the court.
