SC digs into UP’s criminal justice system after ending 35-year case

THe sublime margaret court has turned its genus lens on Uttar Pradesh’s deep loaded down criminal justice system, expanding proceedings in a 35-year-old criminal case into a wider judicial examination of staggering pendency, prolonged undertrial incarceration, judicial vacancies and delays in disposal of bail pleas across the state.A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan quashed criminal proceedings pending since 1991 before a court in Prayagraj, observing that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be reduced to a “mere platitude”.Calling for extensive state-wide data from the Allahabad High Court, the bench indicated that the matter may evolve into a larger continuing mandamus on judicial delays and undertrial incarceration in Uttar Pradesh. “Thirty-five years for a trial for simple hurt and criminal intimidation is too long a time,” noted the court in its judgment, released on Tuesday, while allowing an appeal filed by police officer Kailash Chandra Kapri against the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash the proceedings.The case arose from a 1989 FIR lodged at GRP Rambagh police station, Prayagraj, alleging that five police constables deployed during Kumbh Mela duty assaulted another constable following a dispute over food in a police mess. Charges were framed under Sections 147, 323 and 504 IPC along with Section 120 of the Railways Act.The bench noted that Kapri was only 22 years old when the FIR was registered and is now 59, with the trial still incomplete. “The prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution,” said the court, adding that keeping an accused in “suspended animation” for decades violates Article 21. Advocates Rajesh G Inamdar and Shashwat Anand appeared for Kapri.The court further noted that two co-accused had died during the pendency of proceedings, while the remaining two were acquitted in 2023 after the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness over more than three decades despite repeated opportunities granted by the trial court.Undertaking an extensive survey of precedents on speedy trial, from Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar (1979) to AR Antulay Vs RS Nayak (1992) and P Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka (2002), the bench reiterated that speedy trial is not merely procedural but a substantive constitutional protection flowing from the right to life and liberty.However, the court said that the problem was systemic and far beyond one individual case. “Guidelines just remain on paper; guidelines do not work fully,” lamented the bench, pointing to the absence of accountability in implementing repeated judicial directions issued over decades.The court stressed that merely granting relief to one litigant would not advance the larger constitutional purpose underlying Article 21. Accordingly, it directed the registrar general of the Allahabad High Court to place before it detailed state-wide data on criminal pendency, undertrial detention, judicial vacancies and pending bail applications.The directions include disclosure of total pending criminal cases before magistrate and sessions courts across Uttar Pradesh, age-wise breakup of pendency, number of undertrial prisoners and duration of incarceration, stalled criminal trials and reasons for delay, sanctioned and working strength of judicial officers, vacant posts in the subordinate judiciary, and status of proposals pending with the state government for filling vacancies.The bench also specifically sought granular data on pending bail applications before the Allahabad High Court, including categorisation based on duration of custody undergone by undertrials, the number of accused incarcerated for over 10 years, and whether any mechanism exists to prioritise old bail matters and cases involving prolonged incarceration.The affidavit has been directed to be filed by July 13.