NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court , while adjudicating a matter related to inexplicable delays in disposal of cases in trial courts last week, observed that a speedy trial, as part of the right to life, is an unimpeachable right. But what happens when counsels are not available in over 62 lakh cases, accused are absconding in more than 35 lakh cases, witnesses are missing in nearly 27 lakh cases, and over 23 lakh cases are stayed by different courts?
As of Sept 25, 5.34 crore cases are pending across all courts in the country, including 4.7 crore pending trials in district and subordinate judiciary, 63.8 lakh in high courts, and 88,251 before the SC.
While reasons for delay are not available for cases pending before the Supreme Court and high courts, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) has cited 15 reasons behind delays in 1.78 crore cases before lower courts, out of the 4.7 crore pending with them. Of the cases with available reasons, 81% are criminal and 19% civil. For roughly three crore cases, no reasons have been provided.
The main reasons cited are "counsels not available" in over 62 lakh cases; absconding accused in over 35 lakh cases; missing witnesses in nearly 27 lakh cases; stay by various courts in over 23 lakh cases; "awaiting documents" in over 14 lakh cases; and "parties not interested" in almost 8 lakh cases.
The other reasons cited by the NJDG include frequent appeals, unavailable records, miscellaneous applications blocking trials, parties seeking additional witnesses, and legal representatives of deceased parties not being on court records. The oldest case pending in a subordinate court is 73 years old, filed in 1952.
As reported by TOI, the apex court, in an order passed on Sept 22, directed high courts to issue circulars to all district judicial authorities that trials cannot be adjourned simply because counsels are unavailable, except in cases of bereavement. Courts are also directed to consider cancelling bail where the accused and their counsel are found collusively delaying proceedings. If a counsel is causing delay, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to ensure day-to-day trial.
"The legal position is that once examination of witnesses starts, the court concerned must continue trial from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined," the court noted.
The SC bench of Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan observed: "It is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout this mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even flimsy grounds."
As of Sept 25, 5.34 crore cases are pending across all courts in the country, including 4.7 crore pending trials in district and subordinate judiciary, 63.8 lakh in high courts, and 88,251 before the SC.
While reasons for delay are not available for cases pending before the Supreme Court and high courts, the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) has cited 15 reasons behind delays in 1.78 crore cases before lower courts, out of the 4.7 crore pending with them. Of the cases with available reasons, 81% are criminal and 19% civil. For roughly three crore cases, no reasons have been provided.
The main reasons cited are "counsels not available" in over 62 lakh cases; absconding accused in over 35 lakh cases; missing witnesses in nearly 27 lakh cases; stay by various courts in over 23 lakh cases; "awaiting documents" in over 14 lakh cases; and "parties not interested" in almost 8 lakh cases.
The other reasons cited by the NJDG include frequent appeals, unavailable records, miscellaneous applications blocking trials, parties seeking additional witnesses, and legal representatives of deceased parties not being on court records. The oldest case pending in a subordinate court is 73 years old, filed in 1952.
As reported by TOI, the apex court, in an order passed on Sept 22, directed high courts to issue circulars to all district judicial authorities that trials cannot be adjourned simply because counsels are unavailable, except in cases of bereavement. Courts are also directed to consider cancelling bail where the accused and their counsel are found collusively delaying proceedings. If a counsel is causing delay, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to ensure day-to-day trial.
"The legal position is that once examination of witnesses starts, the court concerned must continue trial from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined," the court noted.
The SC bench of Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan observed: "It is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that trial courts flout this mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even flimsy grounds."
You may also like
Strictly Come Dancing announces major shake-up to results show after 7 years
Christian Norgaard makes Arsenal attacking promise ahead of Newcastle amid Nick Woltemade warning
Two Bihar wetlands join global list of Ramsar sites
Furious Shane Lowry 'held back' as tensions boil over in new Ryder Cup footage
Strictly Come Dancing 2025 winner 'revealed' in first show - but it's 'not Karen Carney'
