Even for a country known for its tardy judicial processes, the fact that the L.N. Mishra assassination case remained in the trial stage for nearly 40 years after the Union Railway Minister was killed in January 1975 is an unconscionable blot on the criminal justice system. It is somewhat typical of the administration of justice in the country, but longer than normal, as even long and protracted proceedings move on from trial to appellate stage within a decade and a half. Undue delay, it is often noted, amounts to denial of justice. The accused have to bear the burden of a pending criminal case for years, often from their youth to a ripe old age. The victims and their families are left with a sense of dejection. Delay may also lead to unjust acquittals as many key witnesses are unlikely to be available or have a sufficiently good memory to testify with confidence after the passage of many years. In the Mishra case, four men have been sentenced to life imprisonment, but they are already too old and infirm to suffer rigorous imprisonment. There really cannot be any acceptable justification for the 35-year delay since the trial was transferred from Bihar to Delhi in 1979.
The Law Commission, which has gone into the issue more than once, has pointed out that the judiciary alone is not to blame for processual delays, as the fault equally lies with tardy investigators and prosecutors. There are other factors like lack of manpower and insufficient use of technology. The panel has suggested remedial measures, both administrative and legislative. One should not forget that some trials, invariably those involving public functionaries, have been expedited at the intervention of the higher judiciary. A perception had gained ground that the languid criminal justice system helped the political class delay and undermine prosecution for corruption. It was to remedy this that the Supreme Court fixed a time limit of one year after framing of charges for the completion of trials related to legislators. The time has now come for the judiciary to extend the principle to all criminal cases. A reasonable time limit, one that would not compromise on due process, may have to be fixed. Even now, Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code says once examination of witnesses begins, the court shall proceed on a day-to-day basis until all witnesses are examined. This provision has to be enforced. As suggested by a Law Commission report to the Supreme Court in 2012, the law relating to superintendence of the lower judiciary by the High Courts may be amended to provide recourse for those affected by judicial delays to approach the High Court for expediting trials.
COMMents
SHARE