1996 JTR(SC) 895
1996 1 ACC 648 ; 1996 2 AICLR 443 ; 1996 AIR(SC) 1619 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2279 ; 1996 2 ALD(Cri)(SC) 1 ; 1996 33 AllCriC 515 ; 1997 1 AllMR(SC) 49 ; 1996 2 ALT(SC) 27 ; 1996 44 BLJR 1025 ; 1996 4 BomCR(SC) 519 ; 1996 98 BomLR 143 ; 1997 2 CalLT(SC) 8 ; 1996 2 CCR(SC) 180 ; 1996 2 CLR 202 ; 1998 94 CompCas 776 ; 1996 CriLR 430 ; 1996 2 Crimes(SC) 114 ; 1996 11 CriR(Orissa) 159 ; 1996 CrLJ 2380 ; 1996 2 CTC 356 ; 1996 2 DMC 19 ; 1996 2 DMC 49 ; 1996 2 EastCrC(SC) 129 ; 1997 1 GLH 417 ; 1997 2 GLR 1297 ; 1996 ILR(Kar) 2063 ; 2001 ILR(Kar) 1081 ; 1996 JCC 503 ; 1996 4 JT 701 ; 1997 KashLJ 20 ; 1996 2 KLJ 110 ; 1996 2 KLT 820 ; 1996 2 LW(Cri) 382 ; 1996 2 MhLJ(SC) 1 ; 1996 MPLJ 636 ; 1996 1 MWN(Cri) 353 ; 1996 1 OLR 584 ; 1996 2 PLJR(SC) 122 ; 1996 2 RCR(Cri) 419 ; 1996 2 RLW(Raj) 85 ; 1996 4 Scale 127 ; 1996 8 Scale 557 ; 1996 4 SCC 33 ; 1996 SCC(Cri) 589 ; 1996 3 SCJ 41 ; 1996 SCR 296 ; 1996 Supp2 SCR 196 ; 1996 2 UJ 263 ; 1996 KHC 455 ; 1996 4 Supreme 37
1996(4) Supreme 37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.P. Jeevan Reddy & S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Common Cause" A Registered Society through its Director -Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No.1128 of 1986
Decided on 1-5-1996
VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The very pendency of criminal proceedings for long periods by itself operates as an engine of oppression and therefore the Supreme Court issued appropriate directions to protect and effectuate the right to life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.
A) The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by a registered society pursuing public causes seeking general directions to address systemic delays in criminal trials across the country. The directions sought included quashing or dismissing criminal proceedings that had been pending for extended periods, on the grounds that such prolonged inordinate delays violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21 and operate as an engine of oppression, particularly affecting poorer accused persons. The Court examined the applicability of existing criminal procedure principles to ensure speedy disposal of cases and issued comprehensive directions aimed at curbing abuse of the criminal justice system. These directions draw upon the principles of personal liberty, fair trial, and proportionality in sentencing embedded in the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, while also recognizing the need to balance the interests of victims, society, and the accused in cases involving offences of varying severity.
B) The core legal principles outlined in the judgment emphasize that prolonged pendency of criminal cases, especially for minor offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, violates the constitutional right to life and liberty. The directions underscore the duty of criminal courts to ensure speedy trials, prevent oppression through delayed prosecutions, and grant bail or discharge in cases where trials are unduly protracted. The judgment also emphasizes the need to prioritize trials involving serious offences while closing or discharging cases that suffer from inordinate delays, particularly where no substantial grounds for prosecution exist.
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed by Common Cause, a registered society, seeking general directions to address the plight of accused persons in criminal cases pending in courts across the country, citing inordinate delays leading to prolonged incarceration, especially for minor offences. The directions sought were aimed at quashing or dismissing cases based on the duration of pendency, the severity of the offence, and the period of custody, with a view to protecting the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Union of India, State Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the Delhi Administration filed counterarguments, and the Court considered the merits of the petition before issuing directions applicable to all States and Union Territories.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that it is a common experience that prosecutions for minor offences are often kept pending for years, particularly affecting poorer sections of society who cannot afford legal representation or bail. It observed that such prolonged pendency operates as an engine of oppression and can undermine the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court accepted that directions were necessary to ensure speedy disposal of cases, protect the accused from undue hardship, and prevent the criminal justice system from being misused for harassment.
Issues:
Whether prolonged pendency of criminal cases, especially for minor offences, violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether the Court can issue general directions to quash or dismiss cases based on the duration of pendency and the severity of the offence. Whether such directions can be applied prospectively to future cases and to all States and Union Territories. Whether the directions balance the need for speedy trials with the protection of the accused from oppression and abuse of the criminal justice system.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that where offences are punishable with imprisonment up to three years or five years, and trials are pending for one or two years respectively, with the accused in jail for six months or more without bail, the accused shall be released on bail or personal bond. Further, where trials for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years are pending for two years or more, and the accused have been in custody for one year or more, they shall be released on bail. The Court also directed that cases pending for more than specified periods, depending on the nature of the offence, be discharged or acquitted if trials have not commenced, subject to exceptions for serious offences such as corruption, terrorism, and offences affecting public tranquility. These directions are to apply not only to pending cases but also to cases instituted hereafter.
Result:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions issued to Union of India and State Governments to implement the guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal cases, release of accused persons who have undergone prolonged incarceration for minor offences, and dismissal or discharge of cases that remain pending beyond the stipulated periods, subject to specified exceptions.
A) The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was filed by a registered society pursuing public causes seeking general directions to address systemic delays in criminal trials across the country. The directions sought included quashing or dismissing criminal proceedings that had been pending for extended periods, on the grounds that such prolonged inordinate delays violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21 and operate as an engine of oppression, particularly affecting poorer accused persons. The Court examined the applicability of existing criminal procedure principles to ensure speedy disposal of cases and issued comprehensive directions aimed at curbing abuse of the criminal justice system. These directions draw upon the principles of personal liberty, fair trial, and proportionality in sentencing embedded in the Indian Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, while also recognizing the need to balance the interests of victims, society, and the accused in cases involving offences of varying severity.
B) The core legal principles outlined in the judgment emphasize that prolonged pendency of criminal cases, especially for minor offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, violates the constitutional right to life and liberty. The directions underscore the duty of criminal courts to ensure speedy trials, prevent oppression through delayed prosecutions, and grant bail or discharge in cases where trials are unduly protracted. The judgment also emphasizes the need to prioritize trials involving serious offences while closing or discharging cases that suffer from inordinate delays, particularly where no substantial grounds for prosecution exist.
Facts of the case:
The petition was filed by Common Cause, a registered society, seeking general directions to address the plight of accused persons in criminal cases pending in courts across the country, citing inordinate delays leading to prolonged incarceration, especially for minor offences. The directions sought were aimed at quashing or dismissing cases based on the duration of pendency, the severity of the offence, and the period of custody, with a view to protecting the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Union of India, State Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and the Delhi Administration filed counterarguments, and the Court considered the merits of the petition before issuing directions applicable to all States and Union Territories.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that it is a common experience that prosecutions for minor offences are often kept pending for years, particularly affecting poorer sections of society who cannot afford legal representation or bail. It observed that such prolonged pendency operates as an engine of oppression and can undermine the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21. The Court accepted that directions were necessary to ensure speedy disposal of cases, protect the accused from undue hardship, and prevent the criminal justice system from being misused for harassment.
Issues:
Whether prolonged pendency of criminal cases, especially for minor offences, violates the right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Whether the Court can issue general directions to quash or dismiss cases based on the duration of pendency and the severity of the offence. Whether such directions can be applied prospectively to future cases and to all States and Union Territories. Whether the directions balance the need for speedy trials with the protection of the accused from oppression and abuse of the criminal justice system.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that where offences are punishable with imprisonment up to three years or five years, and trials are pending for one or two years respectively, with the accused in jail for six months or more without bail, the accused shall be released on bail or personal bond. Further, where trials for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years are pending for two years or more, and the accused have been in custody for one year or more, they shall be released on bail. The Court also directed that cases pending for more than specified periods, depending on the nature of the offence, be discharged or acquitted if trials have not commenced, subject to exceptions for serious offences such as corruption, terrorism, and offences affecting public tranquility. These directions are to apply not only to pending cases but also to cases instituted hereafter.
Result:
The writ petition was disposed of with directions issued to Union of India and State Governments to implement the guidelines for speedy disposal of criminal cases, release of accused persons who have undergone prolonged incarceration for minor offences, and dismissal or discharge of cases that remain pending beyond the stipulated periods, subject to specified exceptions.
JUDGMENT
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.-"Common Cause", a registered society espousing public causes has asked for certain general directions in this writ petition, preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, with respect to cases pending in criminal court all over the country. The directions asked for are:
(a) quashing of all proceedings against persons accused of offences under the Motor Vehicles Act where the proceedings were initiated more than one year ago and are still pending in any court in the country;
(b) to direct the unconditional release of the accused and dismissal of all proceedings pending in Criminal Courts with respect to offences under Indian Penal Code or other penal statutes which have been pending for more than three years from the date of their institution and for which offences the maximum sentence provided under law is not more than six months - with or without fine. This direction is sought in respect of all prosecutions whether lodged by police, other governmental agency or by a private complainant;
(c) directing the unconditional release of all the accused and dismissal of criminal proceedings against persons who have been in police or judicial custody for a period of more than three years from the date of their arrest or remand to such custody, where the offences alleged are not punishable with more than seven years - with or without fine; and
(d) directing the unconditional release of the accused and dismissal of proceedings against persons accused of offences under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code [I.P.C.] where the proceedings have been pending in any Court for more than one year from the date of their institution.
The Petitioner has requested that the aforesaid directions should apply not only to cases pending in Courts on the date of the passing of the order but also to cases executed hereinafter.
Notices were directed to Union of India and the State Governments of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar and to the Delhi Administration. Counters have also been filed by them.
We are of the opinion that the suggestions made are well-meaning and consistent with the spirit underlying Part-III of the Constitution of India and the criminal justice system. They deserve serious consideration by this Court and the High Courts in the country. It is a matter of common experience that in many cases where the persons are accused of minor offences punishable not more than three years - or even less - with or without fine, the proceedings are kept pending for years together. If they are poor and helpless, they languish in jails for long periods either because there is no one to bail them out or because there is no one to think of them. They very pendency of criminal proceedings for long periods by itself operates as an engine of oppression. Quite often, the private complainants institute these proceedings out of oblique motives. Even in case of offences punishable for seven years or less - with or without fine - the prosecutions are kept pending for years and years together in criminal courts. In a majority of these cases, whether instituted by police or private complainants, the accused belong to poorer sections of the society, who are unable to afford competent legal advice. Instance have also come before courts where the accused, who are in jail, are not brought to the court on every date of hearing and for that reason also the cases undergo several adjournments. It appears essential to issue appropriate directions to protect and effectuate the right to life and liberty of the citizens guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. It is also necessary to ensure that these criminal prosecutions do not operate as engines of oppression. Accordingly, the following directions are made which shall be valid not only for the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Delhi but for all the States and the Union Territories:
1(a) Where the offences under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force for which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years with or without fine and if trials for such offences are pending for one year or more and the concerned accused have not been released on bail but are in jail for a period of six months or more, the concerned criminal court shall release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be found necessary, in the light of Section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code [Cr.P.C.]
1(b) Where the offences under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force for which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding five years, with or without fine, and if the trials for such offences are pending for two years or more and the concerned accused have not been released on bail but are in jail for a period of six months or more, the concerned criminal court shall release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject to the imposing of suitable conditions, if any, in the light of Section 437 Cr.P.C.
1(c) Where the offences under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force for which the accused are charged before any criminal court are punishable with seven years or less, with or without fine, and if the trials for such offences are pending for two years or more and the concerned accused have not been released on bail but are in jail for a period of one year or more, the concerned criminal court shall release the accused on bail or on personal bond to be executed by the accused and subject to imposing of suitable conditions, if any, in the light of Section 437 Cr.P.C.
2(a) Where criminal proceedings are pending regarding traffic offences in any criminal court for more than two years on account of non serving summons to the accused or for any other reason whatsoever, the court may discharge the accused any close the cases.
2(b) Where the cases pending in criminal courts for more than two years under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are compoundable with permission of the court and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the criminal court shall, after hearing the public prosecutor and other parties represented before it or their advocates, discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
2(c) Where the cases pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force pertain to offences which are non-cognizable and bailable and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trials have still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
2(d) Where the cases pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are pending in connection with offences which are punishable with fine only and are not of recurring nature, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
2(e) Where the cases pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment upto one year, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than one year and if in such cases trials have still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
2(f) Where the cases pending in criminal courts under I.P.C. or any other law for the time being in force are punishable with imprisonment upto three years, with or without fine, and if such pendency is for more than two years and if in such cases trial have still not commenced, the criminal court shall discharge or acquit the accused, as the case may be, and close such cases.
3.For the purpose of directions contained in clauses (1) and (2) above, the period of pendency of criminal cases shall be calculated from the date the accused are summoned to appear in the court.
4. Directions (1) and (2) made hereinabove shall not apply to cases of offences involving (a) corruption, misappropriation of public funds, cheating, whether under the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act or any other statute, (b) smuggling, foreign exchange violation and offences under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (c) Essential Commodities Act, Food Adulteration Act, dealing with Environment or any other economic offences, (d) offences under Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act, Terrorists and Disruptive Activeties Act, (e) offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force, (f) offences against public tranquility; (g) offences relating to public servants, (h) offences relating to coins and Government stamp, (i) offences relating to elections, (j) offences relating to giving false evidence and offences against public justice (k) any other type of offences against the State (l) offences under the Taxing enactments and (m) offences of defamation as defined in Section 499 I.P.C.
5. The criminal courts shall try the offences mentioned in Para (4) above on a priority basis. The High Court are requested to issue necessary directions in this behalf to all the criminal courts unde their control and supervision.
6. The criminal courts and all courts trying criminal cases shall take appropriate action in accordance with the above directions. These directions are applicable not only to the cases pending on this day but also to cases which may be instituted hereafter. As and when, a particular case gets covered by one or the other direction mentioned in Directions (1) and (2) read with Direction (4) above, appropriate orders shall be passed by the concerned court without any delay.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.
No costs.
Note : The Registrars of the High Courts are requested to communicate copies of this Order to all the criminal courts under the control and superintendence of the respective High Courts with a direction to send compliance reports to the High Court within three months from the date of receipt of communication.
*******