The Supreme Court directs all High Courts to issue circulars ensuring expeditious trials, especially in sensitive cases, stressing continuous examination of witnesses and strict adherence to Section 309 CrPC. The move aims to uphold the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has directed all High Courts to issue a circular to their respective District Judiciaries, emphasizing the need for faster and more efficient conduct of trials and inquiries.
This development comes in the backdrop of a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the High Court’s order granting bail to a rape accused.
The two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan highlighted the urgent need to revive the practice of conducting trials on a day-to-day basis, especially in sensitive and important cases, a practice followed regularly around thirty years ago.
ALSO READ: Adani Tells Delhi High Court: No Fresh Content Takedown Until Gag Order Appeal Decided
The Bench observed,
“The practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about thirty years ago has been given a complete go-by. We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice. For the purpose of reverting to the old practice, it is necessary to understand the current social, political and administrative scenario including the way the Police are functioning. All the High Courts need to constitute a Committee to discuss this issue very seriously for the benefit of their respective district judiciaries.”
The Court noted that one of the major reasons for delays in the justice system is the discretionary and non-continuous nature of criminal trials, where evidence is presented in fragments over many months or even years.
“While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far outweigh the perceived benefits,”
the Court added. Additional Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave represented the CBI, while Advocate Anjan Datta represented the accused.
The background of the case reveals that when the High Court granted bail to the accused, he had already been in custody for over three years and five months, and it had been almost a year since the High Court ordered his release on bail. The victim had already given her oral testimony in the witness box.
The Supreme Court had previously granted one week to the accused to file his counter affidavit and had also requested a status report from the Trial Court regarding the trial.
In response, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) of the Special Court explained why the cross-examination of the victim had been deferred and why witnesses were being examined piecemeal.
According to the report, the victim had to stop giving her testimony because she suddenly fell ill, leading to a four-month adjournment.
In view of these circumstances, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to issue a circular to their District Judiciaries.
The Court recommended the following measures:
[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.
[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.
[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a ‘Special Reason’ for the purpose of bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.
[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:
a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non-cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.
b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.
c. The Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including the expenses to attend the court.
d. In case when the accused is absent and the witness is present for examination, in that case the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail. (Unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witness present even in his absence, provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that, he would not dispute, his identity as a particular accused in the case.)
[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the system for framing a schedule of constructive working days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in advance, after ascertaining the convenience of counsel on both sides.
[7] The summons or process could be handed over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule fixed by the Court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is an essential part of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court stated,
“The essence of Article 21 of the Constitution lies not only in ensuring that no citizen is deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law, but also that such procedure ensures both fairness and an expeditious conclusion of the trial. … The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the constitution of India,”
The Bench strongly disapproved of the common practice in trial courts where examination-in-chief of witnesses is recorded in one month and cross-examination takes place much later.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Allows Parents to Evict Children from Property If They Neglect Them
It noted:
“The legal position is that once the examination of witnesses starts the court concerned must continue the trial from day to day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined (except those whom the public prosecutor has given up). We are at pains to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy grounds. The legislature itself has frowned at granting adjournment on flimsy grounds,”.
The Court also stressed the importance of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which restricts adjournments and emphasizes speedy justice.
“Over a period of time, this Court in many of its Judgments and orders has said that it is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity. If examination of unnecessary witnesses is delaying the trial, it would serve no good purpose,”
it said.
Furthermore, the Court added that while the Public Prosecutor is responsible for conducting the criminal trial, the Trial Judge must intervene if unnecessary examination of witnesses is prolonging proceedings.
The Court instructed,
“This aspect should be looked into by the Trial Judge himself. The Trial Judge should ask the Public Prosecutor why he wants to examine a particular witness,”
In the present case, the Public Prosecutor initially sought to examine as many as 60 witnesses, which was later reduced to 30. The Supreme Court remarked,
“We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape. What is the idea in multiplying the witnesses on one particular issue or the other.”
The Court directed that the victim should remain available for further cross-examination and urged the Trial Court to complete the trial as soon as possible.
The Court added,
“Once the oral evidence of the victim is completed, the Trial Court should make all possible endeavour to see that the other witnesses are examined at the earliest and the trial is completed with judgment by 31-12-2025. … It is needless to clarify that the respondent – accused is duty bound to comply with all the conditions imposed in the bail order passed by the High Court and fully cooperate for expeditious disposal of the trial,”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court disposed of the Petition and directed its Registry to send a copy of its Order to all High Courts immediately.
The case in question is titled The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1155).
The Petitioner was represented by ASG Archana Pathak Dave, along with Advocates Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Sayooj Mohandas, V.V.V. Pattabhi Ram, Chitrangda Rastaravara, and Rahul Thanwani.
The Respondent was represented by Advocate Vishal Arun Mishra and Advocates Anjan Datta and Ishita Srivastava.
Case Title:
The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1155)
Click Here To Read More Reports on Adani
