Supreme Court Seeks Data From Allahabad High Court On Pending Criminal Cases, Undertrial Custody In UP

Observing that the right to speedy trial under Article 21 cannot remain an “abstract or illusory safeguard”, the Supreme Court recently sought extensive data from the Allahabad High Court on criminal pendency, undertrial detention, bail applications and vacancies in the Uttar Pradesh district judiciary.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the directions while quashing criminal proceedings pending for 35 years against a former Uttar Pradesh police constable in a case involving allegations of simple hurt and criminal intimidation.

“Article 21 has been a part of our Constitution since it was adopted in 1949 and came into effect on January 26, 1950. As of 2026, it has been a cornerstone of Indian democracy for 76 years while it states that “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”, its meaning has expanded significantly over the decades through various decisions of this Court to include the right to privacy, education, clean environment, etc., and above all, the right to speedy trial. This right to speedy trial should not remain as an abstract or illusory safeguard”, the Court emphasised.

The Court referred to its 2019 judgment in State of Kerala v. Rasheed, in which guidelines were laid down for conduct of criminal trials. The directions required trial courts to prepare a detailed case calendar after framing of charges, specifying dates for examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses, scheduling witnesses deposing on the same subject matter together, and strictly following the case calendar unless departure becomes absolutely necessary.

The Court remarked that several such guidelines may have been issued by the Supreme Court, but they merely remain on paper.

“We wonder how many such guidelines as referred to above may have been issued by this Court over a period of at least two decades. Guidelines just remain on paper; guidelines do not work fully. The reason for the same is also very simple. No court bothers to follow the guidelines. They do not follow because there is no accountability. No one is made answerable for the same”, the Court said.

In the present case, the Court stated that merely granting relief to the appellant would not serve the larger purpose behind the judgment. The Court sought relevant information from the Allahabad High Court and indicated that after collecting the necessary data and statistics, it may consider evolving some modalities to improve the situation in Uttar Pradesh.

The Court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to furnish, on affidavit, detailed information regarding –

• Pendency of criminal cases before Judicial Magistrates First Class and Chief Judicial Magistrates across the State,
• Age of such cases, number of undertrial prisoners in those matters, duration of their incarceration and impediments preventing trial courts from proceeding with those cases.
• Similar information was sought regarding pending sessions cases, including the age of pending matters, the number of accused in custody as undertrial prisoners and the obstacles delaying progress of those prosecutions.
• Number of judicial officers currently functioning as Judicial Magistrates First Class, Chief Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Judges, the sanctioned strength in each cadre and the number of vacant posts.
• Whether any proposals sent by the Allahabad High Court for filling vacancies in the cadres of Judicial Magistrates First Class, Chief Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Judges were pending with the State Government.
• Whether details regarding the period of custody undergone by undertrial prisoners are recorded by the High Court Registry in bail applications. If not, whether collection of such data could be mandated for future filings.
• Total number of bail applications pending before the High Court as on April 30, 2026 categorised year-wise in tabular form.
• Whether pending bail applications could be categorised according to the period of custody undergone by applicants and, if so, separate figures for prisoners in custody for more than 10 years, between 8 and 10 years, between 6 and 8 years, between 4 and 9 years, between 2 and 4 years, between 1 and 2 years and between 0 and 1 year.
• Whether any measures presently exist, or existed in the past, for expediting bail applications where the applicant has spent more than five years in custody or for prioritising disposal of the oldest pending bail applications.
• If no such mechanism exists, whether any system could be introduced for tracking and expediting bail applications involving undertrial prisoners who have remained in custody for over five years.
• Whether data was available regarding undertrial prisoners in Uttar Pradesh who have remained in custody for more than five years and whose bail applications have either not been filed, not been decided by sessions courts or not been pursued before the High Court after rejection by sessions courts.

The Court directed that the High Court to send the information to the Supreme Court registry on or before July 13, 2026.

Advocates Rajesh Inamdar, Shashwat Anand appeared for the petitioner.

Case no. – Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6564 of 2026

Case Title – Kailash Chandra Kapri v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 487

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment