Soft Copy Of Trial Court Record To Be Automatically Called For By Registry: Supreme Court On Reducing Pendency Of Criminal Appeals
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of pending criminal appeals before the High Courts, noting that as of 22nd March 2025, the total pendency of criminal Appeals was at 7,24,192.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, as a measure to reduce the pendency of criminal Appeals before the High Courts, has ordered that the soft copy of the record of the Trial Court be automatically called for by the Registry so that the hearing is not delayed.
The Court addressed the issue of pending criminal appeals before various High Courts in the Country, noting that as of 22nd March 2025, the total pendency of criminal Appeals was at 7,24,192. The Court stated, "The ultimate objective is to reduce the substantial backlog of criminal appeals, particularly when the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are at stake in these cases.”
A Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, “Therefore, as a first step, it is necessary for all the High Courts to take up the issue of digitization of the records of the criminal courts, beginning with the Sessions Court and Special Courts under various statutes. As far as the issue of translation is concerned, the Supreme Court of India has devised an Artificial Intelligence (AI) tool- Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS), which has been made available to all the High Courts for translating their judgments. The same tool can be used for translating the record. To ensure the accuracy of translation made by use of this tool, vetting of the translation must be done by the translators.”
Brief Facts
The Court perused a detailed note submitted by Senior Advocates Liz Mathew and Gaurav Agarwal, appointed as Amicus Curiae on the issue of 'policy strategy for grant of bail'. The note addressed the issue of pending criminal appeals before various High Courts and highlighted several issues with important constructive suggestions.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court stated that the "vacancies in the High Courts have a direct impact and correlation with the pendency of criminal appeals". It accepts the suggestion that High Courts with multiple benches examine the "possibility of permitting hearing of the appeals through the medium of video conference". The Court also recommends acceptance of the suggestion for "rationalisation of the roster adopted by the High Courts" so that "there should be dedicated benches dealing with criminal appeals".
The Bench noted that another concern expressed in the note was about the large number of adjournments sought and granted. The Court states that if High Courts find "non-cooperation...recourse must be taken to law laid down by this Court in the case of Bani Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh" by "appointing a legal aid lawyer,”
Delay in hearing the Appeals, the Court noted, was flagged due to "delay in transmitting the record of the Trial Court" and "delay in translating the record". It stated "necessary for all the High Courts to take up the issue of digitization of the records".
“We request the High Courts to take into consideration this order, Baseline Report on Case Management of NCMS, Model Action Plan for Reduction of Arrears in the High Courts published by this Court and the suggestions of the learned Amicus Curiae and make appropriate procedural changes in the rules or practice guidelines. We are conscious of the fact that the High Courts are constitutional courts. Therefore, we are leaving it to the High Courts to work on all these aspects in light of what we have expressed and come out with action plans for expeditious disposal of criminal appeals,” the Bench held.
Consequently, the Court ordered, “It will be ideal if all the High Courts amend the procedural rules and provide that as soon as a notice is issued in criminal appeal arising out of order of conviction or acquittal, soft copy of the record of the Trial Court is automatically called for by the Registry so that the hearing is not delayed. Therefore, we recommend to the High Courts to accept the suggestions in this behalf in the Baseline Report of the NCMS as well as in paragraphs 14 and 16 of the note submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae. We are informed that copies of the report have been made available to all the High Courts.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court directed the High Courts to respond to the suggestions within a period of two months from the date of the Order.
Cause Title: In Re Policy Strategy For Grant Of Bail (Suo Moto WP (Crl) No. 4/2021)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Liz Mathew and Gaurav Agarwal; AOR Navneet R.; Advocates Mallika Agarwal, Omkar Hemanth, Alankrita Sinha, Devansh A.Mohta and Utkarsh Singhal
Respondents: Advocate General Prafulla Kumar Bharat; Senior AAGs Garima Prasad and Arunabh Chowdhury; Senior Advocates V.Surendranath, Sanjay R Hegde, Shirin Khajuria and Tapesh Kumar Singh; AAG Amit Sharma; DAG Kartikeya Rastogi and Shekhar Raj Sharma; AOR Prashant Singh, Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, Harshad V. Hameed, Sindoora Vnl, K. Enatoli Sema, Kanhaiya Singhal, Debojit Borkakati, Pai Amit, Nidhi Mittal, Sabarish Subramanian, Mukesh K. Giri, Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Shovan Mishra, Bipasa Tripathy, et al; Advocates Prerna Dhall, Shivam Ganeshia, Akanksha Singh, Ambuj Swaroop, B. Dhananjay, Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad, Sawan Kumar Shukla, Lekha Sudhakaran, Anshul Saharan, Thithiksha Padmam, Amit Kumar Singh, Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Nivedita Tiwari, et al
