NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has quashed a 35-year-old criminal case pending in Prayagraj, observing that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Article 21 cannot become a “mere platitude” and that prolonged delays violate the right to life and liberty.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan allowed the plea filed by senior police officer Kailash Chandra Kapri and set aside the Allahabad High Court order refusing to quash proceedings pending since 1991 in a case arising from an FIR registered in 1989 at GRP Rambagh Police Station in Prayagraj.
“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 observed.
The Bench further remarked that “the prosecution should not be allowed to become a persecution.”
The case originated from a 1989 FIR alleging that five police constables deployed for Kumbh Mela duty assaulted another constable in a police mess following a dispute over food. Charges included Sections 147, 323 and 504 of the IPC along with Section 120 of the Railways Act.
The court noted that Kapri was 22 years old when the FIR was registered and is now 59, while the proceedings remained unresolved. It also recorded that two co-accused died during the pendency of the trial, while the remaining two were acquitted in 2023 after the prosecution failed to examine even a single witness over three decades despite repeated opportunities granted by the trial court.
Referring to earlier landmark rulings, including Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, the Bench reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional guarantee under Article 21.
The court also made strong observations on the justice delivery system, stating, “Guidelines just remain on paper; guidelines do not work fully,” and added that lack of accountability was a major reason why earlier judicial directions had failed to bring effective reform.
Stating that the right to speedy trial “should not remain as an abstract or illusory safeguard,” the Supreme Court expanded the matter into a wider examination of criminal case pendency, undertrial detention and judicial vacancies in Uttar Pradesh.
The court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to file a detailed affidavit on pending criminal cases before magistrate and sessions courts, age-wise breakup of cases, number of undertrial prisoners and duration of incarceration, stalled trials and reasons for delay.
The Bench also sought data on pending bail applications before the High Court, including categorisation based on the duration of custody undergone by undertrial prisoners.
The affidavit has been directed to be filed before the Supreme Court registry by July 13, 2026. The court ordered that the matter be treated as “part-heard” for further consideration after the data is submitted.