Shocking That Over 350 Trials Pending In J&K For More Than 5 Years : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today(March 10) said that it is extremely disappointed to know that 351 sessions trials are pending in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir for more than 5 years, and out of those cases,  250 cases are pending at the stage of recording of oral evidence of witnesses.

Reminding that the accused persons have a right to a speedy trial, the Court said that the UT must come up with a plan to conclude the pending trials at the earliest.

It may be recalled that the Supreme Court last month granted bail to a man, accused in a murder case, after finding that his trial had been pending for more than 7 years and only 7 witnesses had been examined by the prosecution so far. 

Looking at the sorry state of affairs, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan had then directed the Chandraker Bharti, Principal Home Secretary, Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, to appear online on the next date of hearing. It has also asked the Secretary to place on record the pending criminal trials where the accused has been under custody for more than 5 years.

Today, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati placed the details on record. As per the affidavit filed by  Secretary Chandraker, who appeared via VC, the following details emerged:

• 351 trial cases are pending for more than 5 years, involving 585 accused persons
• 2 cases are at the stage of charge/evidence, 6 are at the stage of judgment, and 235 cases at the prosecution witness stage.
• 14 is at the 313 CrPC stage(erstwhile Section 342 of the Ranbir Penal Code), 34 are at final arguments 

After hearing the details, Justice Pardiwala questioned why so many trials are pending for more than 5 years.

"What are the Trial Courts doing? Accused is in jail past five years, his trial is not concluded. That is something very very serious...Why are you not able to produce the witnesses for the recording of the oral testimonies? Is it the failure of the investigating agency to produce witnesses that is causing the detail in the conclusion of the trial? We should know, we should go to the root of the problem. Present case is very gross," he said.

Justice Viswanathan asked if there is any proposal as to when the trials are likely to be concluded.

It may also be recalled that the Court had called for a report from the Trial Court on the flagrant delay. As per the report received, the Trial Court had asked the prosecuting agency to produce the prosecution witnesses. But in the 23 hearings, no witnesses were produced.

"So for 23 times, the trial must have been adjourned only because 3, 4, 5 and 6 [prosecution witnesses] could not be produced...Prosecution did not produce any evidence on 26 judicial hearings before Trial Court to prove the police report and before this Court on 56 judicial hearings despite judicial directions. Only 7 witnesses have been examined till date. 11 witnesses are from Hisar, Haryana," Justice Pardiwala remarked.

In the last hearing, it was submitted by ASG Bhati that some delay was caused due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Justice Pardiwala observed that while some delay was understandable due to the Covid pandemic, the continued delay thereafter made no sense.

Justice Pardiwally also orally said that even if the prosecution tries to establish a murder case, it would fall under culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused. He asked the Home Secretary if there is a lack of Trial Courts or Judges in J&K.

"Are you all short of trial courts? Are you short of Trial Judges? Are you all short of Public Prosecutors? What is the problem? We are not able to understand. Rather is is unpaletable for us to accept that you are unable to produce the prosecution witnesses for examination. That is your responsibility, you have to bring them," Justice Pardiwala said. He also said that the J&K High Court should have intervened in the matter.

The Court has now sought further details, including the number of witnesses in the 235 pending cases, how many of them have been examined, and when the witnesses were last examined. Justice Viswanathan orally remarked that this is a "pilot study" for the Court.

The counsel representing the Court advocated for pan-India directions. He submitted that another accused has filed a writ petition seeking bail. He has been languishing in jail for more than 8 years and was arrested when he was merely 19 years old. On this, Justice Pardiwalla reminded Bhati that the accused persons have a right to a speedy trial. They must know where they stand.

The Court observed in today's order :

"In pursuance of our order, the Principal Secretary, Home Department, has joined online. We also looked into the affidavit filed by Shri Bhari, Principal Secretary. It appears to us from the information furnished in the affidavit, more particularly the status of the undertrials that there are in all 351 Sessions Trials pending in the State. There are in all 585 accused persons facing trials. However, the shocking fact is that these trials, that is 351 in number, are pending for more than 5 years. Another disturbing feature highlighted in the chart is that out of 351 cases, 235 cases are pending at the stage of recording of the oral evidence of the witnesses. 

There could be many reasons for the delay in all these cases. However, we should not ignore or overlook the fact that the accused has a right to speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21. Once charge is framed, it is expected that the Trial Court will record oral evidence and conclude at the earliest. Prima facie, it appears that these cases are delayed as the prosecuting agency is unable to produce prosecution witnesses for examination. This could hardly be a ground for delay in the conclusion of the trial.

Since we have a particular figure now before us, that is, 235 cases pending at the oral evidence stage. We request Ms Bhati to furnish the following on the next date of hearing. With respect to each case, we would like to know

1. date of framing of charges, 

2. how many witnesses have been cited in the chargesheet, how many are proposed to be examined, and how many have been actually examined, 

3. date of the examination of first prosecution witnesses, date of examination of last witnesses and the next date fixed,

4. summary of reasons/remarks for the delay in the examination of witnesses,

5. proposed/estimated time of disposal.

Let the aforesaid be furnished to us in the form of affidavit, duly affirmed by the Principal Secretary.

We have taken up the issue very seriously. The whole idea in initiating this exercise is to ensure that undertrials do not languish in jail for an indefinite period of time. The victims also deserve speedy justice. Many times, we have observed that justice should not only be done to the accused person. Justice is also to be done to the victims and the kin and kith of the victims.

We also impressed upon Mr Bharti,  Principal Secretary, to look into this matter very seriously. We expect the State to have some modality by which the problem of delay in the conclusion of the trial is taken care of. Bharti has assured us today that he would take the matter, particularly the large issue, very seriously and have a meeting with the agencies concerned. We must have some plan duly prepared by the State in this regard."

Case Details: ANOOP SINGH Vs U.T. OF J AND K|SLP(Crl) No. 1398/2026