The Supreme Court today expressed concern over the pendency of criminal appeals as old as 42 years in the Allahabad High Court and said that "some drastic measures" needs to be taken to reduce pendency in judicial system.
The apex court said that a mechanism needs to be evolved soon, for speedy disposal of cases related to petty offences, which has been clogging the judicial system.
"Some drastic measures need to be taken to reduce the pendency in high courts. A mechanism needs to be evolved for speedy disposal of cases related to petty offences which are clogging the judicial system, as they consume considerable time," a bench of justices J Chelameswar and Sanjay Kishan Kaul said.
"This is a serious matter. We have seen the report of Allahabad High Court. Criminal appeals are pending since four decades," it said.
The top court directed the registry for sending a reminder to the Allahabad High Court for submitting the report of a committee which has been looking over the issue of reducing the pendency in four weeks.
At the outset, senior advocate M N Rao who was appointed amicus curiae by the apex court to assist in the matter told the bench that oldest criminal appeals in the country of 1976 are pending in Allahabad High Court.
He suggested that high courts should refrain from giving adjournments in cases, which have lesser punishments to enable speedy disposal.
The bench said that court's give adjournments on the request of advocates and it would not be appropriate to pass any such directions.
"Judges are judges and lawyers are lawyers. Adjournments in cases are normally given when advocates make request. It will not be appropriate to pass any such directions," the bench said.
Rao said that a five-judge committee constituted by the Allahabad High Court is examining the issue of reducing the pendency of cases there and unless the report of that panel comes, he would not be in a position to address the court further in the matter.
Advocate Dushyant Parashar appearing for two petitioners convicted for murder and awarded life sentence said that his clients be granted bail as they have served more than 16 years in jail.
The bench perused the report of jail superintendent of Unnao in Uttar Pradesh and enlarged both the petitioners on bail, considering their conduct in prison.
The top court had earlier expressed "shock" over the fact that criminal appeals at Allahabad High Court are pending since decades while the Madhya Pradesh High Court has a pendency of over 70,000 cases since 1994.
The Allahabad High Court had said in its report that average time taken for disposal of appeal is 11.39 years and had attributed the delay to shortage of judges, heavy filing of cases, conduct of lawyers and lack of infrastructure.
Concerned over the figures on pending cases cited in the reports of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh high courts, the top court said that "something needs to be done" to contain the alarming situation.
In its report, the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that it has total of 71,474 cases pending since 1994, in its three branches -- Jabalpur, Indore and Gwalior.
The total number of appeals where the sentence is life imprisonment are 15,424.
As many as 21,662 appeals where the sentence is up to three years for petty offences are pending since 1995 while appeals where sentence is more than three years and up to five years are 8,442.
The top court was hearing two petitions including one filed by individuals and NGO Lawyers for Justice seeking speedy disposal of appeals and bails for convicts, whose petition is not likely to come up for hearing in high courts, in near future.
Advocate Navin Prakash appearing for the NGO had said that this situation has resulted in convicts completing maximum sentence for the offence in jail with their appeal challenging their conviction still pending in high courts.
The NGO had challenged the order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court holding that pendency of appeals cannot be the only ground for grant of bail.
It had said that by the time the appeals are taken up for hearing, the convicts would have served the maximum sentence for the offence and their petitions challenging conviction becomes infructous.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
