Delhi-NCR jurisdiction ambiguities helping criminals evade trial, says SC

Last week, the apex court stressed the urgent need for an effective legal mechanism to deal with inter-state complications that frequently derail trials in grave offences under Central Penal Laws

The Supreme Court has flagged serious jurisdictional gaps in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), warning that organised and hardcore criminals are exploiting interstate boundaries to evade prompt investigation and trial.

 

Last week, the apex court stressed the urgent need for an effective legal mechanism to address inter-state complications that frequently derail trials in grave offences under Central Penal Laws, which are the core statutes that define criminal offences.

 

What did the court say?

 

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that jurisdictional ambiguities are being misused by criminal networks.

 

“During the course of the hearing, this has also transpired that in matters of grave offences under the Central Penal Laws, where organised professional or hardcore criminals are involved, they take undue advantage of territorial jurisdictional issues in the NCR,” the court said.

 

The Bench explained that crimes often span multiple states, creating confusion over investigative and trial authority.

 

“Sometimes the offence is committed in ‘A’ State and its trials are traceable in ‘B’ or ‘C’ State also. However, which police or agency should take cognisance of the matter for prompt investigation, or which court should be the competent jurisdictional court, becomes a debatable issue in the ensuing criminal trial,” it noted.

 

The court cautioned that such ambiguity ultimately benefits offenders.

 

“The eventual benefit goes to the unscrupulous criminals, which may not be in the interest of society or the nation,” it said, adding that the issue requires serious consideration by the relevant authorities, including the formulation of a stronger legal framework to optimise existing laws.

 

What was the case about?

 

The case stems from a bail plea filed by Mahesh Khatri, also known as Bholi, whom the prosecution described as a hardened criminal with more than a dozen cases registered against him since 2013, including allegations of attempted murder and extortion.

 

The court expressed serious concern that Khatri’s earliest case, dating back to 2013, remained pending even after 12 years. It also noted that as many as 288 similar trials involving organised crime and gangster-related offences were pending in Delhi.

 

The Bench observed that in many such cases, there was a delay of three to four years between the framing of charges and the commencement of evidence, which undermined the efficiency of the criminal justice system.