1995 JTR(SC) 784
1995 2 AICLR 784 ; 1995 AIR(SCW) 3520 ; 1995 3 CCR(SC) 105 ; 1995 CriLR 541 ; 1995 3 Crimes(SC) 501 ; 1995 CrLJ 4020 ; 1995 4 Scale 633 ; 1995 5 SCC 326 ; 1995 SCC(Cri) 913
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI, C.J.I. AND B.L. HANSARIA AND S.C. SEN, JJ.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 57 of 1979
HUSSAINARA KHATOON AND OTHERS (VII)
Versus
HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR AND OTHERS.
With
Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 222 of 1979
RAHIM MALLA AND OTHERS HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF J&K AND OTHERS.
Writ Petitions (Crl.) No. 57 of 1979 and No. 222 of 1979 {Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus)
Decided on 4-8-1995
Advocates appeared:
V.N. Ganpule, Senior Advocate (Ms K. Hingorani, Mukul Mudgal, D. Goburdhun, B.B. Singh, Ashok Mathur and Prabir Chowdhury, Advocates, with him) for the appearing parties.
Act Referred :CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.32, Art.21
(A) The petitions arise from undertrial prisoners languishing in jails due to delayed disposal of cases, invoking the constitutional remedies under Article 32 read with Article 21. This Court has previously laid down detailed guidelines through interim orders on bail for undertrials on personal bonds, emphasizing expeditious trial and alleviating overcrowding. The present petition seeks general directions for implementing those guidelines statewide, including setting up additional courts, supplying experts, simplifying prosecution sanction, and revising undertrial categories, all falling within the supervisory obligation of the High Courts under the existing framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that general blanket orders for undertrial release are hazardous and must be case-specific, balancing sympathy for long incarceration against societal impact of serious crime. Monitoring and implementation of guidelines are primarily the duty of State High Courts, with this Court limiting its role to laying down broad principles and requesting High Court reviews. The mechanism must focus on early disposal of cases rather than mere withdrawal, with High Courts acting as the on-site problem diagnosticians.
Facts of the case:
Numerous criminal writ petitions were clubbed together, and interim orders had been passed for releasing undertrials on personal bonds. A detailed order on a habeas corpus petition in Bihar was followed by periodic orders culminating in guidelines, which are now sought to be crystallized into general directions for the State.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while the guidelines are sound, their repetition in miscellaneous petitions is unnecessary. Implementation must be entrusted to High Courts, which can collate statistics, apply the guidelines, and respond to status reports. This Court will only request High Chief Justices to review undertrial cases and direct effective implementation.
Issues:
Whether general orders for undertrial release can be issued in abstract; whether the High Courts are adequately monitoring the guidelines; and what mechanism ensures early disposal of cases without undermining societal interests.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that case-specific adjudication under High Court supervision, guided by previously issued broad principles, is the appropriate method, and that this Court should not issue repetitive general orders but instead ensure High Courts fulfill their monitoring role.
Result:
The petitions are deemed to have served their purpose and are disposed of, leaving implementation to the High Courts with a directive to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.
(A) The petitions arise from undertrial prisoners languishing in jails due to delayed disposal of cases, invoking the constitutional remedies under Article 32 read with Article 21. This Court has previously laid down detailed guidelines through interim orders on bail for undertrials on personal bonds, emphasizing expeditious trial and alleviating overcrowding. The present petition seeks general directions for implementing those guidelines statewide, including setting up additional courts, supplying experts, simplifying prosecution sanction, and revising undertrial categories, all falling within the supervisory obligation of the High Courts under the existing framework.
(B) Key legal principles include that general blanket orders for undertrial release are hazardous and must be case-specific, balancing sympathy for long incarceration against societal impact of serious crime. Monitoring and implementation of guidelines are primarily the duty of State High Courts, with this Court limiting its role to laying down broad principles and requesting High Court reviews. The mechanism must focus on early disposal of cases rather than mere withdrawal, with High Courts acting as the on-site problem diagnosticians.
Facts of the case:
Numerous criminal writ petitions were clubbed together, and interim orders had been passed for releasing undertrials on personal bonds. A detailed order on a habeas corpus petition in Bihar was followed by periodic orders culminating in guidelines, which are now sought to be crystallized into general directions for the State.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that while the guidelines are sound, their repetition in miscellaneous petitions is unnecessary. Implementation must be entrusted to High Courts, which can collate statistics, apply the guidelines, and respond to status reports. This Court will only request High Chief Justices to review undertrial cases and direct effective implementation.
Issues:
Whether general orders for undertrial release can be issued in abstract; whether the High Courts are adequately monitoring the guidelines; and what mechanism ensures early disposal of cases without undermining societal interests.
Ratio Decidendi:
The Court held that case-specific adjudication under High Court supervision, guided by previously issued broad principles, is the appropriate method, and that this Court should not issue repetitive general orders but instead ensure High Courts fulfill their monitoring role.
Result:
The petitions are deemed to have served their purpose and are disposed of, leaving implementation to the High Courts with a directive to ensure expeditious disposal of cases.
ORDER
1. A large number of criminal writ petitions, many of them based on letters, were grouped together as petitions by undertrial prisoners and certain orders were passed from time to time for the release of certain prisoners on bail on their executing personal bonds for appearance without any monetary obligations. A detailed order was passed on 12-2-1979 by a Division Bench of this Court on a habeas corpus petition filed in regard to the state of affairs in Bihar. This was followed by orders passed from time to time which have been reported as "Hussainara Khatoon, Re {(1980) 1 SCC 81} ". Guidelines have been laid down in these orders in regard to the release of undertrials who are found to be languishing in jails for want of expeditious disposal of pending cases. Now Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 5660 of 1993 has been filed seeking certain general orders on the basis of guidelines culled out from the said orders, namely, for undertaking an inquiry in regard to the question of setting up of additional courts in every State, providing investigating agencies with more experts, simplifying the procedure for sanction of prosecution, strict compliance with the provisions of Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, circulation of guidelines to the courts in States and revision of categories of undertrials in various jails in the State of Bihar.
2. Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines by orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines periodically because the enforcement of the guidelines by the subordinate courts functioning in different States should now be the responsibility of the different High Courts to which they are subordinate. General orders for release of undertrials without reference to specific fact-situations in different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can be no doubt that undertrial prisoners should not languish in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail for want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary obligations, these are matters which have to be dealt with on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition and in subsequent cases from time to time. Sympathy for the undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the impact of crime, more particularly, serious crime, on society and these considerations have to be weighed having regard to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be no doubt that trials of those accused of crimes should be disposed of as early as possible, general orders in regard to judge strength of subordinate judiciary in each State must be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the State concerned. We share the sympathetic concern of the learned counsel for the petitioners that undertrials should not languish in jails for long spells merely on account of their inability to meet monetary obligations. We are, however, of the view that such monitoring can be done more effectively by the High Courts since it would be easy for that Court to collect and collate the statistical information in that behalf, apply the broad guidelines already issued and deal with the situation as it emerges from the status reports presented to it. The role of the High Court is to ensure that the guidelines issued by this Court are implemented in letter and spirit. We think it would suffice if we request the Chief Justices of the High Courts to undertake a review of such cases in their States and give appropriate directions where needed to ensure proper and effective implementation of the guidelines. Instead of repeating the general directions already issued, it would be sufficient to remind the High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Withdrawal of cases from time to time may not always be an appropriate and acceptable remedy, but what is required is to evolve a mechanism which would enable early disposal of cases. The High Court being on the spot would be able to diagnose the ailment rather than merely deal with the symptoms. We are, therefore, of the view that these petitions have served their purposes and should stand disposed of leaving the further implementation to the High Courts.
For Citation: 1995(5) SCC 326
Vikas Info Solutions Pvt. Ltd.