SC Pulls Up J&K UT for Procedural Lethargy After Only 7 Witnesses Examined in 7 Years
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
Delhi,3, February,2026-In a scathing indictment of prosecutorial indolence and judicial inertia, the Supreme Court of India has excoriated the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir for detaining an undertrial prisoner for seven excruciating years, during which the prosecution managed to examine a mere seven witnesses. Deploring this “sorry state of affairs,” a division bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan invoked the sacrosanct right to speedy trial under Article 21, granting statutory bail to the petitioner—a murder accused—and issuing peremptory directives to unearth similarly protracted custodial ordeals.
“The petitioner approached the Trial Court as well as the High Court seeking regular bail, specifically raising the plea of gross violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. While the High Court acknowledged the petitioner’s right to speedy trial, it nevertheless declined bail solely on the ground that the offence alleged is punishable with life imprisonment, and instead issued a direction to the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously”
The petitioner, languishing in custody since his arrest in connection with a homicide, approached the apex court seeking liberatory relief. On January 29, when the matter came up for hearing, the bench demanded an explication from the trial court and the prosecuting agency for the “flagrant delay” that had transmogrified pre-trial detention into de facto punishment. Today, after perusing the response, Justices Pardiwala and Viswanathan lambasted the investigating agency, observing that such lethargy offends the foundational tenets of criminal jurisprudence.
Justice Pardiwala Added that “Is this a joke? You have made a mockery of Article 21. You have made a mockery of this concept of speedy trial, and in all respect, you have violated the fundamental right of this accuses who is behind bars as under trial prisoner past 7 years…. You owe an explanation why this laxity in the conduct of trial on your part… what is this man doing in jail past 7 years? Look at the report of the trial court. The trial charge is exasperated. He says what do I do of course, he can’t express helplessness, he could have done many things….
The Union Territory’s counsel initially feigned ignorance, claiming inability to locate all relevant orders—a contention swiftly dismantled by Justice Viswanathan, who pinpointed precisely 86 orders in the case file. When the advocate proffered the COVID-19 pandemic and logistical hurdles—as witnesses hailed from distant Haryana—as extenuating circumstances, the bench remained unpersuaded.
““The prosecution case, as emerging from the FIR and the charge-sheet, alleges that the incident occurred on the night of 03/04 October 2018 at Sudhir Factory, Bari Brahmana, where the deceased and the petitioner were allegedly present along with other co-workers. Even according to the prosecution, the incident arose out of a sudden verbal altercation, allegedly triggered by a prior employment dispute. There is no allegation of premeditation, prior planning, or preparation. The alleged weapon is a small cooking gas cylinder, stated to have been picked up at the spot in the heat of the moment. “The petitioner submitted
Justice Pardiwala interjected pointedly, underscoring that even the widow of the victim had intervened via a protest petition, yet progress remained abysmal.
In a bid to exorcise systemic malaise, the bench mandated the Home Secretary of the J&K UT to appear virtually on the next date of hearing. It further directed a comprehensive disclosure of all pending criminal trials where accused persons have endured custody exceeding five years, signalling a potential Suo motu inquiry into Article 21 violations across the UT’s docket.
Advocate Dr. Pratap Singh Nerwal Represented the petitioner
This ruling reverberates as a clarion call for expeditious justice, reminding executive and judicial arms alike that undue delay erodes the rule of law’s edifice. The order underscores the Supreme Court’s role as sentinel of personal liberty, ensuring that bail is the norm and jail the exception.
