SC flags delay in criminal justice, pulls up 23-year-long trial stay

HCs told to dispose of matters where criminal proceedings for grave offences frozen because of interim relief

The Supreme Court on Thursday flagged systemic delay in criminal justice delivery, noting that serious trials had been stalled for decades solely due to subsisting interim orders. The apex court urged all High Courts to urgently list and dispose of matters where criminal proceedings for grave offences, such as murder, rape and dowry death, have been frozen because of interim relief.

 

A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan cautioned that allowing prosecutions in such cases to languish indefinitely erodes public confidence in the justice system.

 

“We would like to know first and foremost why it took 23 years for the High Court to take up the criminal revision petition filed by the petitioners for hearing, more particularly when the subject matter of challenge in the criminal revision petition was an order framing charge in a very sensitive and serious trial like one of dowry death,” the Bench questioned.

 

The court stressed that fairness in criminal adjudication must extend not only to the accused but equally to victims and their families, warning that prolonged stagnation of trials makes a “mockery of justice”.

 

“If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but a mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all the parties. Justice cannot be done only with the accused persons. Justice has to be done even with the victim and the family members of the victim. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” the Bench observed.

 

The judges called upon the Chief Justices of all High Courts to ensure immediate hearings of petitions where interim orders have halted trials, particularly in sensitive and serious offences. Such matters, the court said, require priority listing and expeditious resolution.

 

The directions arose from a case involving the death of a woman within a year of marriage. An FIR was lodged in 2002 alleging dowry harassment and murder, and charges were framed the same year. However, the trial was stayed in 2003 after a criminal revision petition was filed before the Rajasthan High Court. That revision remained pending for nearly two decades, was finally taken up in 2023, and dismissed only in 2025, after which the accused approached the Supreme Court.

 

Rejecting the appeal, the Bench described the litigation history as deeply troubling and expressed shock at the institutional delay that kept a grave criminal trial in abeyance for almost 20 years. The court indicated that a closer examination would be required to fix responsibility for such lapses.

 

Seeking accountability, the court directed the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to furnish detailed data on criminal revision petitions, including year-wise filings and disposals, from 2001 through 2026. It also sought specifics on how often the revision petition in the present case was listed for hearing between its filing and eventual dismissal.

 

The Bench further questioned the inaction of the Rajasthan government, asking why the state failed, over a span of 23 years, to take steps to have the revision petition heard and decided on merits.

 

A copy of the order has been directed to be circulated to the secretary generals and registrar generals of all High Courts for placement before their respective Chief Justices. The matter is slated to be taken up again on January 15, after receipt of the case file from the High Court, for consideration of further directions.