'35 years for simple hurt case': Supreme Court ends 1991 Prayagraj trial

Supreme Court directs Allahabad High Court to file state-wide data on judicial delays.

New Delhi: In a landmark judgment and a scathing indictment of delay in India’s criminal justice system, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed a 35-year-old criminal case pending before the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Prayagraj, observing that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot be allowed to become a “mere platitude”.

The court, at the same time, expanded the proceedings into a wider judicial examination of criminal pendency, undertrial incarceration and judicial vacancies in Uttar Pradesh.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, after hearing advocates Rajesh G Inamdar and Shashwat Anand, appearing for senior police officer Kailash Chandra Kapri, allowed his plea and set aside the Allahabad HC’s refusal to quash proceedings pending since 1991 arising out of an FIR registered in 1989 at GRP Rambagh Police Station, Prayagraj (Allahabad).

The court observed, “35 years for a trial for simple hurt and criminal intimidation is too long a time” and that keeping a person in “suspended animation” for decades violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court said, “the prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution.”

The case originated from a 1989 FIR lodged at GRP Rambagh, Allahabad, alleging that five police constables posted for Kumbh Mela duty assaulted another constable in a police mess following a trivial dispute over food. The offences alleged included Sections 147, 323 and 504 IPC along with Section 120 of the Railways Act.

The bench noted that the appellant was only 22 years old when the FIR was registered and was now 59 years old while the criminal proceedings still remained unresolved.

The court also took note of the fact that two co-accused had died during pendency of proceedings, while the remaining two were acquitted in 2023 because the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness over three decades despite repeated opportunities granted by the trial court.

The judgment also undertook an extensive exposition on the jurisprudence of speedy trial under Article 21, tracing earlier landmark precedents from Hussainara Khatoon Vs State of Bihar to A R Antulay Vs R S Nayak and P Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka.

The bench emphasised that speedy trial is not merely procedural but a fundamental constitutional guarantee flowing from the right to life and liberty.

However, the court stopped short of treating the matter as an isolated case.

In unusually strong observations directed at the justice delivery system itself, the bench remarked that despite decades of judicial pronouncements and guidelines, little has changed on the ground.

“Guidelines just remain on paper; guidelines do not work fully,” the court said, adding that the absence of accountability was a major reason why repeated directions issued over the years fail to translate into actual reform.

The court said that merely granting relief to one appellant would not serve the larger constitutional purpose behind the judgment.

Stressing that Article 21 has now evolved to include the right to speedy trial as a substantive constitutional protection, the bench said this right “should not remain as an abstract or illusory safeguard.”

In its judgment, the court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to file a detailed affidavit supplying extensive statewide data relating to criminal pendency, undertrial detention, judicial vacancies and bail applications.

The directions include furnishing information on total pending criminal cases before Judicial Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Courts across Uttar Pradesh; age-wise breakup of pending cases; number of accused presently lodged in jail as undertrials and duration of incarceration; status of stalled criminal trials and impediments delaying proceedings; total sanctioned strength and working strength of judicial officers; number of vacant posts in the subordinate judiciary; whether proposals for filling vacancies are pending with the state government.

The court further sought granular data specifically relating to bail applications pending before the High Court, including total pending bail applications as on April 30, 2026; categorisation based on duration of custody undergone by undertrial prisoners; number of accused in custody for over 10 years, 8-10 years, 6-8 years and other brackets; whether mechanisms exist to prioritise old bail matters and prolonged incarceration cases; number of undertrial prisoners incarcerated for more than five years whose bail applications have either not been filed or not decided.

The bench directed that the affidavit have to be filed before the Supreme Court registry by July 13, 2026, and also ordered that the matter be treated as “part-heard” for further consideration after receipt of the data.

Legal observers feel the order could potentially evolve into a larger continuing mandamus on judicial delays and undertrial incarceration in Uttar Pradesh, similar to earlier systemic interventions undertaken by the apex court in prison reform and legal aid matters.

The ruling is also likely to become a major milestone and precedent in cases involving extraordinary prosecutorial delay, particularly where trials have effectively collapsed due to institutional inaction rather than conduct attributable to the accused.