Supreme Court flags 40-year trial delay, finds case papers lying with it since 2013

THe sublime margaret court’s try to dig into a four-decade hold up in a criminal trial led to an unexpected moment of institutional introspection, as it emerged that the proceedings had effectively remained frozen for over a decade because the original records had been requisitioned by the top court in 2013, and never returned.A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe was hearing an appeal arising from the conviction of a lawyer, who had been sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for allegedly tampering with court records in a land acquisition matter. What began as a routine inquiry into inordinate delay took an unusual turn when the bench was informed that the trial court had been unable to proceed in the absence of the original records, which continued to remain in the custody of the Supreme Court.The bench had in February sought a detailed explanation from the registrar general of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on why the criminal trial, initiated in 1983, remained inconclusive despite a specific Supreme Court direction in 2001 to complete proceedings within six months. Calling the delay “rather shocking”, the bench had underlined the need to account for a breakdown that spanned over four decades.The response that followed, however, presented a peculiar situation. According to the report, the original trial court record had been requisitioned by the Supreme Court in July 2013 and was never returned, effectively bringing the trial to a standstill. In the absence of the original file, the trial court was unable to proceed, with judicial work in the case coming to a complete halt.The report further disclosed that even prior to the records being sent to the top court, the case had suffered from chronic delays. At one stage, the file was reported “misplaced”, leading to attempts at reconstruction. Compounding matters, the docket was not listed for nearly nine years, from August 2017 to March 2026, due to what was described as an “inadvertent” failure by court staff to place it before the judge.Taking note of these revelations, the Supreme Court directed its registry to verify the status of the records and ensure their immediate return to the trial court. It also ordered that the criminal case be taken up and disposed of expeditiously once the records are restored.The case itself arises from allegations dating back to the early 1980s that certified copies of judicial records had been tampered with to overcome limitation barriers in land acquisition appeals. While contempt proceedings were initiated simultaneously, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had, as early as 1983, decided to defer them until the criminal trial concluded.However, in a departure from this approach, the high court proceeded in 2008 to decide the contempt case and convicted the lawyer, even though the criminal trial remained pending.But the Supreme Court found this course untenable. Setting aside the conviction and sentence, the bench held that the issues in the contempt and criminal proceedings were intrinsically linked and rested on the same set of facts. Proceeding with contempt adjudication while the criminal trial remained unresolved, it noted, created the possibility of contradictory outcomes, particularly if the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case.“The truth of whether the appellant was involved…is common for both proceedings,” noted the court in its recent order, cautioning that a conviction for contempt in such circumstances could become “incongruous” if the criminal case were to end differently.