“No Court Bothers To Follow Guidelines”: Supreme Court Quashes 35-Year-Old Criminal Case Citing Enormous Delay
The Bench, concerned over judicial apathy in long-pending criminal cases, called for a systemic audit of old trials and bail pleas in Uttar Pradesh.
The Supreme Court has lamented that despite numerous precedents, sub-ordinate courts often fail to adhere to established guidelines for the expeditious disposal of cases. Accordingly, the Court quashed a 35-year-old criminal case, where the man was accused of simple hurt and criminal intimidation, noting that the fundamental right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India is meaningless if trials are allowed to languish indefinitely.
Furthering this stance, the Court has now initiated a wider inquiry into the status of long-pending matters before Judicial Magistrates-I Class (JM) and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrates (CJM). The Bench has sought detailed data on undertrial prisoners who have remained in custody for over five years and the measures being taken to prioritise their cases.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “…It is, as such, neither a grave or heinous offence nor an offence against the community as such, though all criminal offences are crime against the society. Having regard to the nature of offence, there is enormous delay in proceeding with the criminal prosecution- 35 years for a trial for simple hurt and criminal intimidation is too long a time. Quick justice is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Keeping a person in suspended animation for 35 years and that too a public servant without any cause at all- and none was indicted before the High court or before us- gone by with the spirit of procedure established by law. In that view of the matter, it is just unfair and in accordance with equity to direct that the trial or prosecution of the appellant to proceed no further. We do so accordingly”.
“We wonder how many such guidelines as referred to above may have been issued by this Court over a period of at least two decades. Guidelines just remain on paper; guidelines do not work fully. The reason for the same is also very simple. No court bothers to follow the guidelines. They do not follow because there is no accountability. No one is made answerable for the same”, the Bench noted further .
Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR appeared for the appellant and Ruchira Goel, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The litigation originated from an FIR filed on February 19, 1989, at GRP Rambagh Police Station, Allahabad. The complainant, a police constable, alleged that five of his colleagues, including the appellant Kailash Chandra Kapri, assaulted him during a dispute in the police mess.
At the time, the appellant was just 22 years old, while a chargesheet was filed in 1991, two co-accused died during the pendency, and two others were acquitted in 2023 because the prosecution failed to produce a single witness for 33 years, despite the witnesses themselves being police personnel.
The appellant moved the Allahabad High Court after being served summons for the first time in 2021, nearly 32 years after the incident. He sought the quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the grounds of inordinate delay.
However, the High Court dismissed his plea in February 2024, merely granting him liberty to move a discharge application before the trial court. Aggrieved by this refusal to acknowledge the violation of his constitutional rights, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Bench observed that the appellant, now 59, had spent the bulk of his life under the shadow of a case involving a trivial scuffle. It held that such a delay, not attributable to the accused, serves as "presumptive proof of prejudice". The Court criticised the High Court for failing to exercise its inherent powers when a procedure had clearly ceased to be "reasonable, fair, and just".
“…Therefore, we are of the view that the right to speedy trial is also a human right and no civilized society can deny the same to an accused. Furthermore, it should always be the concern of the society to see that a real culprit is given the condign punishment at the earliest and also to see that an accused is given an early opportunity to clear the cloud of suspicion shrouded around him and to remove the tag of 'accused'. The said purpose in view that is founded on social interest may stand frustrated if trial is unduly delayed as trial is the sole device to decide the guilt or innocence of an accused…”, the Bench noted.
The Court quashed all proceedings against the appellant, additionally, directed the Registry of the Allahabad High Court to submit a report by July 13, 2026, answering specific queries regarding undertrials in custody for over five years and the existence of any tracking mechanisms to expedite old bail applications. The matter has been kept "part-heard" to monitor the implementation of these systemic checks.
Cause Title: Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 473)
Appearances:
Appellant: Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, AOR, Shashwat Anand, Sheena Taqui, Akanksha Saini, Shashank Tiwari, Ankur Azad, Saumitra Anand, Faiz Ahmad, Shrey Bhushan, Raghav Grover, Mohd. Kumail Haider, Advocates.
Respondents: Ruchira Goel, AOR.