The Supreme Court of India quashes a 15-year-old case against IAS officer Robert Chongthu, emphasizing the fundamental right to a speedy trial and ruling that accused cannot be subjected to prolonged investigations or undue legal harassment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a landmark judgment reinforcing the fundamental right to a speedy trial, the Supreme Court of India has held that delays in the investigation stage can violate Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling comes in the case of IAS officer Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu, where the Court quashed criminal proceedings citing an 11-year delay in filing the chargesheet.
Case Background
The case traces back to 2002–2005, when Chongthu served as the District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority in Saharsa, Bihar. During his tenure, alleged irregularities in granting arms licenses prompted an FIR in April 2005 under Section 13(2) of the Arms Act, 1959.
- Initial Chargesheet (2006): The police reported no offence, terming allegations as “false.”
- Re-investigation (2007): The police sought further investigation, citing the discovery of a “fake person” among licensees. The court granted permission under Section 173(8) CrPC in 2009.
- Delayed Chargesheet (2020): Despite court approval for further investigation, the fresh chargesheet was filed 11 years later.
- Sanction for Prosecution (2022): The State granted a sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Chongthu, who had also been discharged in departmental proceedings in 2016, approached the Supreme Court challenging the delay.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Urges Day-to-Day Trials to Fast-Track Justice in Criminal Cases
Supreme Court Observations
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, made several key observations:
1. Right to Speedy Trial Includes Investigation
The Court emphasized that Article 21 rights extend to all stages, including investigation. Quoting precedents like Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak and P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, the Bench noted:
“The accused cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation and eventual trial proceedings bearing over their everyday existence.”
2. Sanction Order Invalid
The Court found the sanction order granting prosecution vague and non-speaking, failing to demonstrate the required application of mind.
3. Role of Section 13(2A) of the Arms Act
While the IAS officer may have technically acted outside the statutory timeline once, the Court weighed this against the excessive delay and prior administrative exoneration, favoring dismissal of the prosecution.
4. Judicial Oversight of Further Investigation
The Court clarified that when a magistrate permits further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC:
- The court retains control over the investigation.
- The investigating agency must explain the delay.
- The accused or complainant may approach the High Court under Sections 482/528 CrPC for updates or quashing of unduly delayed proceedings.
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing both:
- The order of cognizance
- The criminal proceedings against IAS officer Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu
This judgment reaffirms the principle that undue delays in investigation violate fundamental rights and establishes a precedent for judicial monitoring of long-pending investigations.
Case Title:
Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @RL Chongthu v. State of Bihar
SLP(Crl.) No. 10130 of 2025
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Speedy Trial