Guilt of Medical Negligence Cannot Be Made Out Merely by Allegation Without Expert Evidence: Supreme Court Partially Modifies NCDRC Order in Hospital Liability Case “There Is No Presumption That Property Remains Joint After Partition” – Supreme Court Restores Validity of Sale by Coparcener Holding Self-Acquired Property Fresh Suit Maintainable Even After Rejection of Restoration Application Under Order IX Rule 4 CPC:  Supreme Court Upholds High Court’s Decree Restoring Plaintiffs' Rights Academic Futures Can’t Be Sacrificed at the Altar of Lease Formalities: Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 to Save Hotel Management Institute Disregarding a Court's Order May Seem Bold, But the Shadows of Its Consequences Are Long and Cold: Supreme Court Sentences Shaji Augustine for Civil Contempt States Must Act to Eliminate Gender Disparities and Ensure Transparency in Organ Transplants: Supreme Court Issues Comprehensive Directions Deliberate Crushing Under Tractor Wheels Establishes Murder, Not Accident: Allahabad High Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 302 IPC Caveat Cannot Be Sidestepped On Ground Of Urgency Or Identity Ambiguity: Calcutta High Court Quashes Injunction Order Passed Without Notice To Caveator Admission by Defendant is the Best Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Reiterates Protection of Possession in Injunction Suits Freedom of Speech Cannot Shield Influencers Who Circulate Unverified Allegations Against Brands: Delhi High Court Talaq-e-Ahsan Is Not Criminalized Under Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act: Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Protection under Section 197 CrPC is Not a Cloak for Unlawful Acts Committed Outside Official Duty: Rajasthan High Court Advocate Betraying Client’s Trust to Usurp Property is the Worst Abuse of Professional Ethics: Madras High Court Rent Controller Has No Power To Condone Delay In Filing Leave To Defend Under Section 13-B Rent Act: Punjab and Haryana High Court Partition Deed Must Be Proven By Primary Evidence If Execution Is Disputed: Jharkhand High Court Annuls Appellate Decree

Supreme Court Condemns Political Influence in Judiciary: “Withdrawal of Prosecution Cannot Be Based on Public Image”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Supreme Court sets aside trial court’s order in a decades-old double murder case, directs expeditious trial.

In a landmark judgment delivered on July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has nullified the trial court’s order allowing the withdrawal of prosecution against a politically influential accused, Chhote Singh, in a double murder case dating back nearly three decades. The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma, underscored the importance of judicial integrity and the dangers posed by political interference in the judicial process. The court also directed the Allahabad High Court to expedite the trial and resolve the long-pending criminal revisions.

The case originates from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on May 30, 1994, by Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, alleging that several accused, including Chhote Singh, attacked and killed Jagdish Sharan Srivastava and Rajkumar alias Raja Bhaiya. The accused were armed and allegedly motivated by prior complaints against them involving criminal activities. Despite being initially named in the charge sheet, Chhote Singh’s prosecution was withdrawn by the trial court in 2012, citing his good public image and political standing.

The Supreme Court condemned the nearly three-decade delay in the trial, attributing it to the political influence of the accused. “The judicial system of our country often finds itself grappling with the pervasive issues of prolonged delay and suspected political influence within the legal proceedings," the bench noted. The court criticized the High Court for repeatedly adjourning the hearings, thereby enabling the accused to use dilatory tactics.

The trial court’s decision to allow the withdrawal of prosecution against Chhote Singh was harshly criticized. The Supreme Court emphasized that withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, should be based on the merits of the case rather than the accused’s public image or political standing. “Matters of a gruesome crime akin to the double murder in the present case do not warrant withdrawal of prosecution merely on the ground of good public image of an accused named in the charge sheet after thorough investigation,” the court asserted.

The Supreme Court highlighted that the trial court’s reasoning, which relied heavily on Chhote Singh’s political status and public image, was flawed. The court reiterated that political power should not influence judicial decisions. “Merely because an accused person is elected to the Legislative Assembly cannot be a testament to their image among the general public,” Justice Vikram Nath observed.

Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “The corroboration provided by the political influence is a significant factor that hinders the prosecution??s case, especially when judicial processes are delayed under duress.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the trial court’s order and direct the High Court to expedite the trial marks a significant step towards ensuring that political influence does not derail the course of justice. By reaffirming the necessity of evaluating cases based on their merits, the judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law. This ruling is expected to expedite pending cases involving influential individuals and reinforce the legal framework to prevent misuse of political power in judicial proceedings.

Date of Decision: July 15, 2024

Shailendra Kumar Srivastava vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

Latest News