Allahabad High Court's Failure To Pronounce Verdict 6 Years After Reserving Forces Supreme Court To Transfer Cases To Itself

The Supreme Court recently invoked Article 139A(transfer of certain cases) of the Constitution and transferred to itself three criminal revision petitions pending before the Allahabad High Court, which failed to deliver the judgments despite reserving them for orders long back in 2020.

As a result of the pendency of these criminal revision petitions in the High Court, the trial in a murder case of 1994 remained stalled.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the Courts usually do not exercise their extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 139A in an Article 32 petition. However, the continued pendency of these petitions before the High Court has a direct bearing on the petitioner's denial of speedy justice, as the criminal trial has come to a complete standstill.

The bench noted:

"In the present proceedings, the record discloses that the continuance of Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012, Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012 and Criminal Revision No. 1900 of 2012 before the High Court has had a direct and continuing bearing on the petitioner's assertion of denial of speedy justice. The revisions were heard and judgment was reserved on 05.02.2020. No judgment has been pronounced thereafter and the proceedings have remained in a state of repeated listing and adjournment. Moreover, the case status of these matters reflected that the matters were last listed on 04.02.2026 and were again adjourned. The subsisting stay has, as pleaded, prevented the Trial Court from proceeding, with the result that criminal proceedings arising out of an incident of 30.05.1994 have remained stalled for decades."

Invoking Article 139A, it observed that the questions that arise in the present petition are no longer confined to the private interest of the parties. It raises substantial issues of how prolonged delay in trials can result in irreversible prejudice.

"They implicate the effective enforcement of binding directions of this Court, the constitutional requirement of timely adjudication after a matter is heard and judgment is reserved, and the credibility of criminal process in serious offences where long delay itself produces irreversible prejudice. These are questions of substantial and general importance. Article 139A(1) of the Constitution therefore furnishes the constitutional mechanism by which this Court may withdraw the connected criminal revision petitions to itself and decide them, so that the adjudicatory process is not rendered illusory by prolonged pendency and that the mandate of the judgment dated 15.07.2024 is carried to its logical conclusion in an effective and time bound manner."

As a consequence, the Court issued notice and directed that the pending criminal revision petitions be withdrawn from the High Court and tagged with the present writ petition for its disposal.

The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court shall transmit the records within three weeks. Upon receipt, the Registry of the Supreme Court, after obtaining appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India, shall place all petitions before it 

Background

The writ petition under Article 32 is filed by the victim's legal heir, seeking the enforcement of Articles 14 and 21 in connection with three connected criminal revision petitions, the judgment of which was reserved by the Allahabad High Court on February 5, 2020, and no judgment has been pronounced yet. 

Directions have also been sought for the implementation of the Supreme Court's judgment dated July 14, 2024, whereby the High Court was required to re-evaluate and decide the pending criminal revision petition concerning the withdrawal of charges against one of the accused.

As per brief facts, the first information was lodged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against nine accused persons in 1995. The case against another accused, who was absconding at that time, was registered in 2004.

In 2008, the Uttar Pradesh Government proposed the withdrawal of charges against the accused Chhotey Singh. In 2012, it filed an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the withdrawal of prosecution. Later, the application was amended, and the government sought withdrawal against all accused persons.

The denial of the withdrawal of charges was challenged by the three accused persons through criminal revision petitions, and the victim's legal heirs also filed a petition, challenging the withdrawal of charges against Chhotey Singh.

By an order dated May 19, 2012, the Trial Court allowed withdrawal of prosecution as against Chhotey Singh but refused the prayer against the remaining accused persons. The trial against others continued. The criminal revision petition was heard by the Allahabad High Court, and the judgment was reserved on February 5, 2020. An order on stay of the trial proceedings was passed, and it has continued since then.

As for the criminal revision petition challenging the Trial Court's order allowing withdrawal of charges against Chhotey Singh, the Allahabad High Court upheld the order. This then came to be challenged by the victim's legal heirs in the Supreme Court. By an order dated July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and asked the Allahabad High Court to reevaluate the matter. 

Pursuant to this order, a supplementary affidavit was filed before the Allahabad High Court placing the July 15 judgment on record along with multiple listing applications. A letter to the Registrar General of the High Court was also moved, requesting that the matter be listed. However, the matter was listed recently on February 4 on which it was adjourned again.

Given the constant adjournment, the victim's legal heirs had to again approach the Supreme Court by way of the present petition, claiming that the pending petitions have resulted in a standstill for the remaining accused persons. It sought directions for time-bound disposal of the petitions and compliance of July 15 judgment.

Given the peculiarity of the case, the Supreme Court observed that generally, the Courts should not entertain an Article 32 petition seeking directions in relation to listing, hearing, or disposal of matters. However, in cases where inaction has resulted in demonstrable infringement of the fundamental rights and where no equally efficacious remedy is available, the Court can exercise Article 139A(transfer of certain cases) of the Constitution to transfer cases to itself.

Explaining in what circumstances Article 139A can be invoked, the bench noted: "Article 139A(1) of the Constitution is intended to secure coherent and effective adjudication where the same or substantially the same questions of law arise in proceedings pending before this Court and before one or more High Courts. The provision enables this Court to withdraw the case or cases pending before the High Court and to dispose of all such cases itself when the questions of law are substantial and of general importance. The object is to ensure that a matter which raises questions of systemic significance is not left to travel through multiple layers in a fragmented manner, and that the determination of such questions is rendered with uniform authority."

As for the implementation of the July 15 order of the Supreme Court, the bench noted that the Court in the order recorded the grave concern about the delay of trial proceedings and the impact of repeated adjournments. It noted that the remaining revision petitions pending before the High Court can't be decided without giving effect to the legal and constitutional observations made in the July 15 judgment.

Case Details: JAIDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.|Writ Petition(s) (Criminal) No(s). 56/2026

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 211

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv. Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv. Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Savita, Adv.