-
by sayum
06 March 2026 2:57 PM
“Prolonged Non-Pronouncement Of Judgment After Reservation Raises Serious Concerns For Right To Speedy Justice”, Supreme Court of India delivered a significant order while addressing the constitutional implications of prolonged judicial delay.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta exercised powers under Article 139A of the Constitution to withdraw three long-pending criminal revision petitions from the Allahabad High Court after noting that judgment in those matters had been reserved since 05.02.2020 but never pronounced, effectively stalling a criminal trial arising from a 1994 double-murder case.
The Court observed that although the Supreme Court does not ordinarily supervise the functioning or listing of cases in High Courts, intervention becomes necessary where prolonged judicial inaction results in violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21.
The case traces its origin to a violent incident dated 30 May 1994, leading to registration of Case Crime No. 68 of 1994 at Police Station Charkhi, District Jalaun, Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
The incident allegedly resulted in two deaths and multiple injuries. Following investigation, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions in 1995, registered as Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1995 against nine accused persons. Another accused, who had earlier absconded, was later committed for trial in 2004, leading to Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2004, both trials being taken up together.
During the pendency of the trial, the State Government issued a Government Order dated 16.04.2008 proposing withdrawal of prosecution against one accused, Chhotey Singh. Subsequently, applications under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were filed seeking withdrawal of prosecution.
By a common order dated 19.05.2012, the Trial Court permitted withdrawal of prosecution against Chhotey Singh but rejected withdrawal in respect of the remaining accused persons.
Aggrieved by the rejection, the remaining accused filed Criminal Revision Nos. 1678/2012, 1874/2012 and 1900/2012 before the Allahabad High Court. Meanwhile, the victim’s predecessor also challenged the withdrawal granted to Chhotey Singh by filing Criminal Revision No. 2107 of 2012.
While the trial court proceeded with evidence between 2016 and 2019, the revision petitions pending before the High Court were heard together and judgment was reserved on 05 February 2020. However, no judgment was pronounced thereafter and the stay operating in those revisions effectively halted the criminal trial.
The dispute reached the Supreme Court earlier in Criminal Appeal No. 2914 of 2024, where the Court set aside the withdrawal of prosecution granted to Chhotey Singh and directed the High Court to re-evaluate and decide the remaining revisions.
Despite these directions and repeated listing applications, the High Court did not pronounce judgment, prompting the victim’s legal heir to approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 alleging violation of the right to speedy justice.
The Supreme Court was required to consider several constitutional and criminal law issues:
“Whether prolonged delay in pronouncement of judgment after reserving a case can infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”
“Whether the Supreme Court can intervene in matters relating to pending proceedings in High Courts where such delay results in serious prejudice to the administration of criminal justice.”
“Whether the Court can exercise its powers under Article 139A to withdraw pending proceedings from a High Court to ensure effective adjudication.”
At the outset, the Court emphasized the institutional autonomy of High Courts, observing that the Supreme Court does not ordinarily entertain petitions under Article 32 seeking directions regarding listing or disposal of matters before High Courts.
The Bench clarified:
“This Court does not ordinarily entertain petitions under Article 32 seeking directions in relation to the listing, hearing or disposal of matters pending before a High Court… Interference at that level would undermine the constitutional position of the High Courts and disturb the settled discipline of judicial hierarchy.”
However, the Court acknowledged that extraordinary circumstances may justify intervention, particularly where continuing judicial inaction leads to infringement of fundamental rights.
Supreme Court On Delay And Right To Speedy Justice
The Bench noted that judgment in the criminal revisions had been reserved since February 2020, yet remained unpronounced even after several years.
The Court recorded that the case status showed repeated adjournments, with the latest listing on 04 February 2026, while the trial itself remained stayed and stalled for decades.
Highlighting the serious consequences of such delay, the Court observed:
“The continuance of these criminal revisions before the High Court has had a direct and continuing bearing on the petitioner’s assertion of denial of speedy justice… the subsisting stay has prevented the Trial Court from proceeding, with the result that criminal proceedings arising out of an incident of 30.05.1994 have remained stalled for decades.”
The Court stressed that prolonged stagnation in criminal cases undermines the credibility of the justice system and prejudices victims as well as the prosecution.
Power Of Supreme Court Under Article 139A
The Court then examined Article 139A of the Constitution, which empowers the Supreme Court to withdraw cases from High Courts when they involve substantial questions of general importance.
Explaining the purpose of the provision, the Bench stated:
“Article 139A(1) is intended to secure coherent and effective adjudication where the same or substantially the same questions of law arise… so that a matter which raises questions of systemic significance is not left to travel through multiple layers in a fragmented manner.”
In the present case, the Court found that the matter involved not only the implementation of its earlier judgment dated 15.07.2024, but also broader constitutional issues concerning:
Accordingly, the Court held that withdrawal of the criminal revisions to the Supreme Court was necessary to ensure effective and time-bound adjudication.
Directions Issued By The Supreme Court
Exercising powers under Article 139A(1), the Court ordered that:
“Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012, Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No. 1900 of 2012 pending before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad are withdrawn to this Court for disposal and tagged with this writ petition.”
The Court also directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to transmit the complete records of the revisions within three weeks.
Additionally, if the original trial records of Sessions Trial No. 17 of 1995 and Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2004 were lying with the High Court, they were to be returned to the Trial Court, while authenticated copies could be retained for the Supreme Court’s record.
Finally, the Registry of the Supreme Court was directed to place the withdrawn matters before an appropriate Bench after receiving the records, subject to orders of the Chief Justice of India.
Through this order, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that extraordinary constitutional intervention may become necessary where prolonged judicial delay frustrates the right to speedy justice and undermines the criminal justice process. By invoking Article 139A, the Court ensured that the long-pending revisions relating to withdrawal of prosecution in a 1994 murder case are adjudicated directly by the Supreme Court, thereby restoring momentum to proceedings that had remained stalled for decades.
Date of Decision: 13 February 2026
