Holding

While bail could not be automatically granted in the present matters, the Supreme Court directed that the pending trial and appeal be disposed of within six months and laid down detailed guidelines for High Courts to ensure speedy trial and bail disposal consistent with Article 21.

Summary

The appellants, who were in custody for several years—one under trial for an offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and another convicted under Section 302 of the IPC—challenged the denial of bail, invoking their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21. The Supreme Court examined whether bail must be granted when an appeal remains pending for more than five years, referencing earlier judgments that such a delay ordinarily warrants bail, but found the second appeal did not meet the five‑year threshold. It also considered the Court's power to direct the disposal of pending proceedings within a fixed period when the right to speedy trial is violated. The Court held that, while bail could not be automatically granted in these cases, the pending trial and appeal must be concluded within six months. It issued comprehensive guidelines for High Courts to expedite bail applications, magisterial and session trials, and to prioritize cases older than five years, including a supplemental provision under Section 436A of the CrPC for releasing under‑trials whose custody exceeds the likely sentence. The directions aim to enforce the constitutional guarantee of a reasonable, fair and just procedure and to improve overall case‑flow management.

Issues considered

The applicability of the principle that bail should be granted when an appeal remains pending for more than five years to the present cases
Whether the denial of bail violates the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution
The scope of the Supreme Court's authority to direct disposal of pending trial and appeal within a fixed time frame
The appropriate procedural timelines for bail applications, magisterial and session trials, and disposal of five‑year‑old cases
The implementation of Section 436A of the CrPC as a supplement for releasing under‑trials whose custody exceeds the likely sentence

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 207, s. 208, s. 436A
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 21(c)

Subjects

speedy trialright to bailArticle 21under‑trial prisonersNDPS ActCriminal Procedure Codejudicial delayhigh court directionscustodial rightscase‑flow management

Judgment

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626

A HUSSAIN AND ANR.
v.
UNION OF lNDIA
(Criminal Appeal No. 509 of2017)
MARCH 09, 2017
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Bail - Denial of bail pending trial/appeal where accused/
convict in custody for long period - Two set of cases - In first case,
appellants were in custody on allegation of an offence u/s.21 (c) of
c the NDPS Act and in second case, appellant was in custody as
convicted u/s.302, !PC and appeal was pending in High Court -
Plea of appellants that they were entitled to bail as speedy trial is
their fundamental right u!Art. 21 - Held: It is settled in various
decisions of the Supreme Court that if appeal is not heard for 5
D years, excluding the delay for which accused himself is responsible,
bail should normally be granted - However, the second case is not
covered by such decisions as appeal pending in High Court not
completed 5 years - Further, it is settled that if there is violation of
right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher
court can direct conclusion of proceedings in fixed time - In light
E
of these principles, direction issued to dispose of the pending trial
in the first case and appeal in the second case within six months -
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 - s.2J(c) - Penal Code - s.302 - Under trial
Prisoners.
F
Supreme Court - Directions - Delay in trials - Speedy trial
is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure guaranteed ulArt. 21
- Inspite of earlier directions of Supreme Court, further
consideration has become necessary in the interest of administration
of justice - Held: High Court to issue directions to subordinate
G courts that - (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within
one week - (b) Where accused are in custody, Magisterial trials be
norlnally concluded within six months and·sessions trials within two
years - (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five
year old by the end of the year - (d) As supplement to s.436A,
Cr.P.C, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess
H
626
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 627

of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such A
under trial must be released on personal bond - Constitution of
India -Art. 21 - Code ofCrimina!Procedure. 1973 - s.436A -
Administration of justice.
Supreme Court - Directions to High Court - Timely delivery
of justice - Speeding up disposal of cases - Held: High Courts to B
ensure that bail applications are decided as far as possible within
one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for
more than five years are concluded at earliest - Further, High Courts
to prepare, issue and monitor appropriate actioi1 plans for the
subordinate courts and monitor steps for speedy investigation and
trial on administrative and judicial side jiwn time to time. c
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: l. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal,
reference has been made to decisions of Supreme Court in case
of Akftt(lri Bi (Smt.) v. Sf(lfe of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias D
Shingara Singh v. Sf(lfe ofPunjab* which provides that if the appeal
is not heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the accused
himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted. The
second case is not covered by the said judgment as the pending
appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013. [Para 6) [632-C-D)
E
*Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of MP (2001) 4 SCC 355 :
[2001) 2 SCR 626; Surinder Singh alias Shingara
Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387 : [2005)
2 Suppl. SCR 1172 - referred to.
1.2 In another Supreme Court decision iu case of Abdul
F
Rehm(ln Antufoy and ors. v. R.S. Nayak am/ tmr. ** while holding
that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under Article 21, it
was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead
of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion
of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles,
the present appeals can be disposed of by directing that the G
pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case
may be disposed of within six months. [Para 7) [632-E-F]
**Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and
anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225 : [1991) 3 Suppl. SCR 325 -
relied on. H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 2 S.C.R.

A 2.1 However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite
of earlier directions of this Court, further consideration has
become necessary in the interest of administration of justice and
for enforcement of fundamental right under Article 21. [Para 8)
[632-P-GJ
2.2 It necessary to direct that steps be taken forthwith by
B
all concerned to effectuate the mandate of the fundamental right
under Article 21 especially with regard to persons in custody in
view of the directions already issued by Supreme Court. It is
desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing
a tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal
c trials of persons in custody and other loug pending cases and
monitors implementation of such timelines periodically. This may
perhaps obviate the need for seeking directions in individual
cases from this Court. It is desirable for Chief Justices of all the
High Courts to take other steps consistent with the directions
already issued by this Court for expeditions disposal of criminal
D
appeals pending in High Courts where persons are in custody by
fixing priority having regard to the time period of detention.
Purther, the directions for setting up of adequate number of
forensic laboratories at all levels are reiterated. Specification of
some of these issues is in addition to implementation of other
E steps including timely investigation, timely serving of summons
on witnesses and accused, timely filing of charge-sheets and
furnishing of copies of charge-sheets to the accused. These
aspects need constant monitoring by High Courts. [Para 241 [641-
G-H; 642-A-CJ
F 2.3 Judicial service as well as legal service are not like
any other services. They are missions for serving the society.
The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the
queue does not get his turn for a long time. Chief Justices and
Chief Ministers have resolved that all cases must be disposed of
within five years which by any standard is quite a long time for a
G case to be decided in the first court. Decision of cases of
undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There arc
obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial
- vested interests or unscrupulous clements try to delay the
proceedings. Lack of infrastructure is another handicap. lnspite
of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for
H
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 629

success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by A
constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding Officer of a court
cannot rest in the state of helplessness. This is the constitutional
responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and
of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts
to ensure timely disposal of cases. The first step in this direction
B
is preparation of an appropriate action plan at the level of the
High Court and thereafter at the level of each and every individual
judicial officer. Implementation of the action pfan will require
serious efforts and constant monitoring. [Para 26) [642-G-H; 643-
A-C)
2.4 To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions c
to subordinate courts that - (a) Bail applications be disposed of
normally within one week; (b) Magisterial trials, where accused
are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and
sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally
concluded within two years; (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all D
cases which are five years old by the end of the year; (d) As a
supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof,
if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the
sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such
undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment
must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; E
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment
of judicial performance in annual confidential reports; (ii) The
High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications ,filed
before them are decided as far as possible within one month and
criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five F
years are concluded at the earliest; (iii) The High Courts may
prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the
subordinate courts; (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for
speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side
from time to time; (v) The High Courts may take such stringent
measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of G
this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal. [Para 27] [643-C-H;
644-A)
Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV} v. Home Secretary,
State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98 : [1979) 3 SCR
532; Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A Secretary. Bihar and ors. etc. (1995) 5 SCC 326;
Supreme Court Legal Aid Cammi/tee representing
undertrial prisoners v. Union of India and ors. (1994)
6 SCC 731 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 386; Noor
Mohammed v. Jethanand and anr.; (2013) 5 SCC 202 :
[2013) 3 SCR 1146; Thana Singh v. Central Bureau
B
of Narcotics88 (2013) 2 SCC 590 : [2013] 2 SCR
899; lmtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(2012) 2 sec 688 : 120121 1 SCR 779; Anita
Kushwaha etc. etc. v. Pushap Sudan etc. etc. (2016) 8
SCC 509; Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13
c SCC 603; Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13
SCC 605; Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons
(2016) 3 SCC 700 : (2016] 1 SCR 1090; Ex. Captain
Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45:
(2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 186 - referred to.
D Case Law Reference
(2001] 2 SCR 626 referred to Para6
(2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1172 referred to Para6

(1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 relied on Para 7
E (1979) 3 SCR 532 referred to Para9
(1995) 5 sec 326 referred to Para 10
(1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 386 referred to Para 11
(2013) 3 SCR 1146 referred to Para 12
F
[2013] 2 SCR 899 referred to Para 13
[2012] 1 SCR 779 referred to Para 15
(2016) 8 sec 509 referred to Para 15
G
(2015) 13 sec 603 referred to Para 16

(2015) 13 sec 605 referred to Para 16

(2016] 1 SCR 1090 referred to Para 16

H [2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 186 referred to Para 25
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 631

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal A
No. 509 of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2015 of the High
Court of Calcutta in C.R.M. No. I 0595 of 2014
WITH
B
Crl. A. No. 511 of2017.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Sameer Chaudhary, Gautam
Khazanchi,Anupam Prasad, Ali Chaudhmy, Mohd. Adee! Siddiqui, Mohd.
Irshad Hanif, Bipin Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
Atmaram N. S. Nand Karni, ASG., S.S. Rebello, Jai D., Vibhu C
Shanker Mishra, R. K. Rathore, Umesh Babu Chaurasia, Ray Bahadur,
M. K. Maroria, Ajit Yadav, Vijay Prakash, Kazi Safiullah, Rauf Rahim,
Rohit K. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.

!
1. Leave granted. Grievance in these appeals is against denial of
bail pending trial/appeal where appellants have been in custody for a
long period. E

th 2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody since
4 August, 2013 on the allegation of having committed offence under
Section 21 (c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application, pending trial, has been
dismissed. In the second case, the appellant is in custody since 11th F
January, 2009. He has been convicted by the trial court under Section
302 !PC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His bail application
has been dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The appellants
contend that, having regard to the long period of custody, they are entitled
to bail as speedy trial is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution. G

3. To consider the question as to the circumstances in which bail
can be granted on the ground of delayed proceedings when a person is
in custody, notice was also issued to learned Attorney General and Mr.
Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae.
H
632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned
amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General.
5. During the hearing reference has been made to the decisions
of this Court dealing with the issue and reference has also been made to
Section 436A Cr.P.C. which provides for grant of bail when a person
B has undergone detention upto one half of maximum prescribed
imprisonment. It was submitted that the said provision applies only during
trial and the first case is not covered by the said provision as the appellant
therein has not undergone the requisite detention period to claim bail
under the said provision.

c 6. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, reference has
been made to decisions of this Court in Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. Stale of
M.R 1 and Surim/er Sin1:h alias Shin1:ara Sin1:h v. State of Punjllh'
which provides that ifthe appeal is not heard for 5 years, excluding the
delay for which the accused himself is responsible, bail should normally
be granted. The second case is not covered by the said judgment as the
D pending appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013.
7. In Abi/11/ Rehman Anlulay mu/ ors. v. R.S. Nayak and
anr.' while holding that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under
Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial,
instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion
E of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles, the present
appeals can be disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first
case and the appeal in the second case may be disposed of within six
months. We order accordingly and dispose of the matters to the extent
of grievance in the two cases.
F II
8. However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite of earlier
directions of this Court, further consideration has become necessary in
the interest of administration of justice and for enforcement of
fundamental right under Article 21 .
G
9. As already noticed, speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair
and just procedure guaranteed under Article 2 I. This constitutional right
cannot be denied even on the plea ofnon-availability of financial resources.
'(2001) 4 sec 355
'(2005) 1 sec 387
3 (1992) I SCC225~Para86
H
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 633
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen A
investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts, building new court
houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment
of additional judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy
trial'.
10. Directions given by this Court in lluss(lill(lrfl Klwloon (supra) B
to this effect were left to be implemented by the High Courts' are as
follows:
"2. Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines by
orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in
subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we c
do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines
periodically because tile enforcement of tile guidelines by
the subordinate courts funclio11i11g in different States should
now be the responsibility oftile different High Courts to which
they are subordinate. General orders for release of
under/rials without reference to spec(fic fact-situations in D
different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can
be no doubt that under/rial prisoners should not languish
in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail for
want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary
obligations, these are matters which have to be dealt with E
on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid
down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition
and in subsequent cases from time to time. Sympathy for the
undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the
pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the
impact of crime, more particular(v, serious crime, on society F
and these considerations have to be weighed having regard
to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be
no doubt that trials of those accused of crimes should be
disposed of as early as possible, general orders in regard to
iudge strength of subordinate judiciary in each State must G
be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High
Court of the State concerned. We share the ~ympathetic
'Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State ofBihar. Patna- ( 1980) I
sec 98 - para 10.
'Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Horne Secretary. Bihar and ors. etc. -{ 1995)
s sec 326 - para 2 H
634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 I 7] 2 S.C.R.

A concern of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
undertria/s should not languish in jails for long spells merely
on account of their inability to meet monetary obligations.
We are, however, of the view that such monitoring can be
done more effectively by the High Courts since it would be
easy for that Court to collect and collate the statistical
B
information in that behalf, apply the broad guidelines already
issued and deal with the situation as ii emerges from the
starus reports presented lo it. The role of the High Court is
to ensure that the guidelines issued by this Court are
implemented in letter and spirit. We think it would Sl![fice if
c we request lite Chief Justices oftlte High Courts to undertake
a review of suclt cases in tlteir States and give appropriate
directions wltere needed to ensure proper and effective
implementation of the guidelines. Instead of repeating lite
general directions already issued, it would be sufficient to
remind the Higlt Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of
D
cases . ... "
(emphasis added)
1 I. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial
is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for
some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending
E
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. This Court has held that while a
person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is
delayed, trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases'.
12. Timely delivery ofjustice is a part of human rights. Denial of
speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of
F
justice. Directions of this Court in Noor Moltammed v. Jetluuumd
and anr. 7 are as follows:
" 34. ......... Therefore, we request the learned Chief Justice
of the High Court of Rajas than as well as the other learned
Chief Justices to conceive and adopt a mechanism, regard
G
being had lo the priority of cases. to avoid such inordinate
delays in matters which can really be dealt with in an

(, Supn:1nc Court Legal Aid Con1111iltee representing undertrial prisoners v. Union of
India and ors. - ( 1994) 6 SCC 731 - para 15
'(2013)5 sec 202
H
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 635
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.)

expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards A
the destination. A sensible individual inspiration and a
committed collective endeavour would indubitably help in
this regard. Neither less, nor more. "
13. In TlwnaSing!t v. Central Bureau ofNarcotics' this Court
directed that liberal adjou,rnments must be avoided and witnesses once B
produced must be examined on consecutive dates. Directions were also
issued for setting up of sut1icient laboratories, for disposal of seized
narcotics drugs and for providing charge-sheets and other documents in
electronic form in addition to hard copies of same to avoid delay.
14. In Akhlari Bi (supra) this Court observed as under: c
"5 . ...... ... it is incumbent upon the High Courts to find ways
and means by taking steps to ensure the disposal of criminal
appeals, particularly such appeals where the accused are
in jails, that the matters are disposed of within the specified
period not exceeding 5 years in any case. Regular Benches D
to deal with the criminal cases can be set up where such
appeals be listed for final disposal. We feel that if an appeal
is not disposed of within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for
no fault of the convicts. such convicts may be released on
bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by
the court. In computing the period of 5 years, the delay for E
any period, which is requisite in preparation of the record
and the delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can
be deducted. There may be cases where even after the lapse
of 5 y~ars the convicts may, wider the special circumstances
of the case, be held not entitled to bail pending the disposal F
of the appeals filed by them. We request the Chief Justices
of the High Courts, where tile criminal cases are pending
for more than 5 years to take immediate effective steps for
their disposal by constituting regular and special Benches
for that purpose."
G
15. Again in lmtiyaz Almuul v, Stale of Ul/ar Pr(l(/es/1 and
Ors.' it was observed that long delay has the effect of blatant violation
of rule of law and adverse impact on access to justice which is a

"(2013) 2 sec 590
'(20l2J 2 sec 688
H
636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A fundamental right. Denial of this right undermines public confidence in
justice delivery. These observations have been reiterated in recent
Constitution Bench judgment in Anita Kusllwalw etc. etc. v. Puslwp
Sudan etc. etc.'°. In the said judgment it was noticed that providing
effective adjudicatory mechanism, reasonably accessible and speedy,
was part of access to justice.
B
16. In B/lim Sill1tfl V. Union of Jntlill 11 , it was observed that
central government must take steps in consultation with the state
governments in fast tracking all types of criminal cases so that criminal
justice is delivered timely and expeditiously. In the same case, in a further
order" it was noted that more than 50% of the prisoners in various jails
c are undertrial prisoners. In spite of incorporation of Section 436A in
Cr.PC. undertrial prisoners continue to remain in prisons in violation of
the mandate of the said section. Accordingly, this court directed
jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Session judge to hold
one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for 2 months for effective
D implementation of Section 436A. Again in Re: !11/mnwn Conditions in
1382 Prisons" reference was made to the advisory issued by Ministry
of Home Affairs to all States for implementation of Section 436A, Cr.PC.
stipulating constitution of a review committee in every district under the
chairmanship of the District Judge. It was noted that 67% of the prisoners
in the jails were undertrials prisoners.
E
III
17. In lmtiyuz Ahmad (supra) this Court noted that serious
cases involving murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoiting were pending for
long period. In some cases proceedings are delayed on account of stay
F orders. Out of the said cases, in 9 per cent cases stay was operating for
more than 20 years, in 21 per cent stay was operating for more than 10
years. Having regard to the situation noticed in the judgment, this Court
directed the High Courts to dispose ofcases in which proceedings were
stayed preferably within six months from the date of stay orders. The
Law Con1mission was directed to make reco1nmendation for 1neasures
G to be.adopted by way of creation of additional courts and the Iik9"matters.
The Law Commission made its recommendations in its 245 Report

"'(2016) 8 sec 509-PARA(S) 31-36
"(2015) 13 SCC603
"(2015) 13 sec 605
12
H (2016)3SCC700
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 637
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

which was examined by the National Court Management Systems A
Committee (NCMSC) to detem1ine additional number of courts required.
The said report was thereafter considered by this Court in judgment
"'
dated 2 January, 2017 in lmtiy11z Almuul v. St11te of U.P. & Ors.
[Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 of2012]. After noticing the stand of the
Ministry of Law and Justice on the subject of creation of additional
'"
posts, this Court also noted the recommendations of the 14 Finance
8
Commission whereby additional fiscal allocation was provided. In that
context, the Prime Minister's letter to the Chief Ministers calling upon
them to allocate funds in the State Budgets was also referred to. Fu1iher
follow up letter of the Law Minister and Resolution of Chief Justices'
Conference held in April, 2016 were also referred to. Thereafter, this c
Court issued directions for computing the required judge strength of the
district judiciary and also directed the State Governments to take steps
for enhancing the judge strength accordingly. The directions are as
follows:
"22. Having regard to the above background, we now D
proceed lo formulate our directions in the fo!loll'ing terms :
i) Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for
determining the basis for computing the required judge
strength of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be
computed for each 'state. in accordance with the interim
E
approach indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson,
NCMSC;
ii) NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its
fhwl report by 31 December 2017;
iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by the Chairperson,
F
NCMSC shall be forwarded by the Union Ministry of Law
and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts and
Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as to
enable them to take follow-up action to determine the required
iudge strength of the district judiciary based 011 the NCMSC
interim report, subject to what has been stated in this G
iudgment;
iv) The state governments shall take up with the High Courts
concerned the task of implementing the interim report of the
Chairperson. NCMSC (subject to what has been observed
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A above) and take necessary decisions within a period of three
months from today for enhancing the required judge strength
of each state judiciary accordingly;
v) The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with
the High Courts in terms of the resolutions passed in the
B ioint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in
April 2016 with a view to ensuri11g expeditious disbursal of
funds to the state judiciaries in terms of the devolution made
under the auspices of the Fourteenth Fi11a11ce Commission;
vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of creating
C additional infrastructure required for meeting the existing
sanctioned strength of their state judiciaries and the
enhanced strength in terms of the interim recommendation
ofNCMSC;
vii) The final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for
D consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices. The
directions in (i) above shall then be subject to the ultimate
decision that is taken on receipt of the final report; and
viii) A copy of this order shall be made available to the
Registrars General of each High Court and to all Chief
E Secretaries of the States for appropriate action. "
The said matternow stands adjourned to July, 2017.
18. During Joint Conference of Chief Ministers of States and
Chief Justices of High Courts held in April, 2015, a decision was taken
that all High Courts will establish Arrears Committees and prepare a
F plan to clear backlog of cases pending for more than 5 years. Such
Committees have reportedly been established. In Chief Justices'
Conference held in April, 2016 under Item No. 8 illler alia the following
resolution was passed:
" {8/ DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE:
G xxx xxx xxx
Resolved that
(i) all High Courts shall assign top most priority for disposal
of cases which are pendi11g for more tha11 jive years;
H (ii) High Courts where arrears of cases pending for more
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 639
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

than five years are concentrated shall facilitate their disposal A
in niission 1node;
(iii) High Courts shall progressively thereafter set a target
of disposing of cases pending for more than four years;
(iv) while prioritizing the. disposal of cases pending in the
district courts for more than five years, additional incentives B
for the Judges of the district judiciary be considered where
feasible; and
(v) efforts be made for strengthening case-flow management
rules. "
c
19. The position of five yearoid cases continues to be alarming
in many States. Total number of more than five year old cases in
subordinate courts at the end of the year 2015 is said to be 43, 19,693 as
"'
noted in para 9 of the judgment of this Court dated 2 January, 2017 in
lmtiyazA/tmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 254-262
of2012]. Number ofundertrials detained for more than five years at the D
end of the year 2015 is said to be 3599. 1" Numberofappeals pending in
High Courts where detention period is beyond five years may be still
higher.
20. It appears that annual action plans have been prepared by
some High Courts with reference to the subject of discussion in the E
Chief Justices' Conference. Reference to action plan of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court for the year 2011-2012 15 shows that undertrials
who were in custody for more than two years as on 1" April, 2011 in
Session Trial cases and those in custody for more than six months in
Magisterial Trial cases were targeted for disposal, apart from five year
F
old cases and other priority cases. Similar targets were fixed for
subsequent years and result reflected in the pendency figures shows
improvement in disposal of five year old cases and cases ofundertrials
in custody beyond two years in Session Trial cases and six months in
Magisterial Trial cases in subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of Punjab
& Haryana High Court. 16 Reportedly, success is on account of monitoring G
14
Prison Statistics lndia-2015
1
' Circular dated 2.4.2011 from Registrar Rules, Punjab and Haryana High Court. As
per resolution of Full Court meeting dated 29.3.2011, the plan was to be monitored
every three months and perfonnance of judicial officers was to be reflected in AC Rs.
16
Report of the monitoring Committee is that targets wer~ achieved to the extent of
90%. 98110 old cases were disposed of out of 117880 targeted. H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A inter alia by holding quarterly meetings of District Judges with Senior
High Court Judges as well as constant monitoring by concerned
Administrative Judges"- Presumably, there is similar improvement as a
result of planned efforts elsewhere. In view of successful implementation
of plan to dispose of cases of undertrials in custody in two years in
Session Trial cases and six months in Magisterial trials, we do not see
B
any reason why this target should not be set unifonnly. The same need
to be regularly monitored and reflected in performance appraisals of
concerned judicial officers. Handicaps pointed out can be tackled at
appropriate level. Accordingly, we are of the view that plan of each
High Court should include achieving the said target and not the target of
c five years for undertrials in custody. Of course, if such cases can be
disposed of earlier, it may be still better. Plans can be revised as per
local conditions. We also feel delay in disposal of bail applications and
cases where trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring. Time line
for disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court. As
far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts should ordinarily
D
be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks.
Posting of suitable officers in key leadership positions of Session Judges
and Chief Judicial Magistrates may perhaps go a long way in dealing
with the situation. Non performers/dead wood must be weeded out as
per rules, as public interest is above individual interest.
E 21. Another suggestion which cropped up during the hearing of
the present case relates to remedying the situation of delay in trials on
account of absconding of one or the other accused during the trial. In
this regard our attention has been drawn to an amendment in the Code
of Criminal Procedure. 1898 of Bangladesh by way of adding Section
F
3398 to the following effect:
"Trial i11 ah.~e11tia
[339B. (}) Where after the compliance with the requirements
of section 87 and section 88, the Court has reason to believe
that an accused person has absconded or concealing himself
so 1hat he cannot be arrested and produced for trial and
G
there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court
taking cognizance of the offence complained of shall, by
order published in at least two national daily Bengali
Newspapers having wide circulation],
17 Sec the inforrnation on \vebsitc of Punjab and l~aryana High Court under the caption

H ..Action Plans"
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 641
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

direct such person to appear before it within such period as A
may be specified in the order, llllll if suclt person fails to
comply witlt suclt direction, lte sltal/ be tried in !tis absence.
(2) Where in a case after the production or appearance of •
an accused before the Court or his release on bail, the
accused person absconds or fails to appear, the procedure B
as laid down in sub-section (1) shall not apply and the Court
competent to try such person for the offence complained of
shall, recording its decision so to do, try such person in his
absence. "
(emphasis added) C
22. It is for the concerned authority to take cognizance of the
above amendment which may considerably reduce delay in cases where
one or the other accused absconds during the trial.
23. Learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Additional Solicitor
General have suggested that monitoring by all High Courts is necessary D
to ensure minimizing adjournments at all levels, taking steps to remove
obstacles in speedy trials including setting up of adequate number of
laboratories, use of Video Conferencing to examine scientific experts or
otherwise, appointment of public prosecutors, compliance of Section 207/
208 Cr.P.C. by scanning/digitizing police reports, introduce system for
E
electronic service of summons (wherever necessary), issuing timelines
for disposal of bail matters at all levels. It has also been suggested that
suitable amendments ought to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure
for permitting tendering evidence of medical witnesses on the pattern of
Section 293 Cr.P.C. While we have discussed some of the issues germane
to the subject of speedy trials, in view of directions already issued by this F
Court, issuance of further directions and monitoring of directions already
issued is left to the concerned High Courts.
24. In view of the above, we do consider it necessary to direct
that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the mandate
of the fundamental right under Article 21 especially with regard to persons G
in custody in view of the directions already issued by this Court. It is
desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing a
tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal trials of
persons in custody and other long pending cases and monitors
implementation of such timelines periodically. This may perhaps obviate
H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A the need for seeking directions in individual cases from this Court. We
also feel that it is desirable for Chief Justices of all the High Courts to
take other steps consistent with the directions already issued by this
Court for expeditious disposal of criminal appeals pending in High Courts
where persons are in custody by fixing priority having regard to the time
period of detention. We also reiterate the directions for setting up of
B
adequate number of forensic laboratories at all levels. Specification of
some of these issues is in addition to implementation of other steps including
timely investigation, timely serving of summons on witnesses and accused,
timely filing of charge-sheets and furnishing of copies of charge-sheets
to the accused. These aspects need constant monitoring by High Courts.
c 25. One other aspect pointed out is the obstruction of Court
proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers or
frequent suspension of court work after condolence references. In view
of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harisli Upp<tl versas Union
·ofIndia", such suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it
D is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which
is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in while periodically
say once in two/three months and not frequently. Hardship faced by
witnesses iftheir evidence is not recorded on the day they are summoned
or impact of delay on undertrials in custody on account of such avoidable
interruptions of court proceedings is a matter of concern for any
E responsible body of professionals and they must take appropriate steps.
In any case, this needs attention of all concerned authorities -the Central
Government/State Governments/Bar Councils/Bar Associations as well
as the High Courts and ways and means ought to be found out to tackle
this menace. Consistent with the above judgment, the High Courts must
F monitor this aspect strictly and take stringent measures as may be
required in the interests of administration ofjustice.

26. Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other
services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not
achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn
G for a long time. Chief Justices and Chief Ministers have resolved that
all cases must be disposed of within five years which by any standard is
quite a long time for a case to be decided in the first court. Decision of
cases of undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are
obstructions at every level in enforcement ofright of speedy trial -vested

H "(2003) 2 sec 45
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 643
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of A
infrastructure is another handicap. Inspite of all odds~ determined efforts
are required at every level for success of the mission. Ways and means
have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding
Officer of a court cannot rest in the state of helplessness. This is the
constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure
B
and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts
to ensure timely disposal of cases. The first step in this direction is
preparation ofan appropriate action plan at the level of the High Court
and thereafter at the level of each and every individual judicial officer.
Implementation of the action plan will require serious efforts and constant
monitoring. c
27. To sum up:
(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts
that -

(a) Bail applications be disposed ofnormally within one week; D
(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally
concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in
custody be normally concluded with in two years;
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years
E
old by the end of the year;
(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the
spirit thereof, ifan undertrial has completed period ofcustody in excess
of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such
undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must
F
be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time;
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone· for assessment
ofjudicial performance in annual confidential reports.
(emphasis added)
(ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications G
filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and
criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years
are concluded at the earliest;
(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate
action plans for the subordinate courts; H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 I 7] 2 S.C.R.

A (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation
and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time;
(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may
be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain
Harish Uppal (supra) .
B 28.Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices ofall High Courts
to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with the directions of this
Court in Hussain Ara Klwtoon (1995) 5 SCC 326) (supra), Akhtari
Bi (Smt.) (supra), Noor Moftammed (supra), TIIana Singft (supra),
S.C. Legal Aid Committee (supra), lmtiaz Ahmad (supra), Ex.
c Captain HarislI Uppal (supra) and Resolution of Chief Justices'
Conference and observations hereinabove and to have appropriate
monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side as well as on
the judicial side for speeding up disposal ofcases ofundertrials pending
in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts.

D We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance
rendered by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate.
A copy of th is order be sent to all the courts.

E Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.