Supreme Court: No stay on trial for more than 6 months

Must Read

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract....

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish...

Follow us

Facts

In a bid to ensure speedy justice and discourage delaying tactics adopted by accused in procuring a lengthy stay on trial, particularly in corruption and criminal cases, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a stay on proceedings must not exceed six months.

The court proceedings

The SC ruled that lower courts could proceed after a six-month period, preventing accused of dragging on the trial. The order should reduce the probability of the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” becoming the norm and aiding the accused in avoiding just desserts in a court of law. Prolonged trials can result in witnesses turning hostile or even dying and evidence being diluted — developments that frustrate victims and law enforcement agencies.

Bench

A bench of Justices Adarsh K Goel, R F Nariman, and Navin Sinha said it was in the interest of society to ensure that cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are tried expeditiously as the cancer of corruption has eaten into vital organs of the state.

“It is well accepted that delay in a criminal trial, particularly in the PC Act cases, has a deleterious effect on the administration of justice in which the society has a vital interest. Delay in trial affects the faith in rule of law and efficacy of the legal system. It affects social welfare and development. Even in civil or tax cases, it has been laid down that power to grant stay has to be exercised with restraint. A mere prima facie case is not enough. The party seeking the stay must be put in terms and the stay should not be incentive to delay. The order granting a stay must show an application of mind. The power to grant a stay is coupled with accountability,” the bench said.

It said the wisdom of legislature and the object of final and expeditious disposal of a criminal proceeding cannot be ignored by courts. Higher courts, while passing orders on the stay of trial, have to balance freedom of an individual on the one hand and security of society on the other.

“Only in case of patent illegality or want of jurisdiction, the high court may exercise its jurisdiction. The acknowledged experience is that where the challenge to an order framing charge is entertained, the matter remains pending for a long time which defeats the interest of justice,” it said.

“In an attempt to remedy this situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case, by a speaking order, such stay is extended,” the court said.

The apex court said that in cases where a stay is granted in future, the same will end on the expiry of six months from the date of such an order unless a similar extension is granted by a speaking order. “The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized,” the court said.

Judgment

The court passed the order while deciding whether an HC can stay trial proceedings on a petition filed by an accused at the stage of framing of charges under the PC Act. It said the HC has jurisdiction to consider the challenge against an order framing charges and also to grant a stay.

A petition challenging framing of charges should be decided in 2-3 months if it is accepted. “If a stay is granted, it should not normally be unconditional or of indefinite duration.”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

Chandigarh Housing Board Is Bound To Implement the Chandigarh Administration’s Policy Decision: Punjab & Haryana High Court

On 15th October 2020, Justices Jaswant Singh and Sant Parkash heard the case of Bhartendu Sood vs Chandigarh Housing Board & Anr., via video-conferencing. Deeming the...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

Uttarakhand High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Seeking Relief for the Cancellation of Selection Process

On 13th October 2020, a Single Judge Bench of Hon'ble Justice Lok Pal Singh, heard the case of Ashish Bisht & Anr. v. State...

Madras High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Against National Stock Exchange For Lack Of Merit

In the case of A. Kumar v. Financial Intelligence Unit & Ors., A. Kumar filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution...

The Federal Appeals Court Holds Trump’s Diversion of Military Funds To Build the Wall To Be Unlawful

The Federal Appeals Court held that US President Donald Trump’s diversion of military funds to build the wall is unlawful. A grey area in the...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Filed Challenging the Judgment of Madras High Court in Ganesan v. State Represented by Its Inspector of Police

An appeal was filed before the Supreme court, challenging the judgment & order of Madras High Court. The Supreme Court upheld the HC judgment...

Bombay High Court Refuses Interim Relief to Doctors Alleging Arbitrary Placement at Government Hospitals for One-Year Mandatory Public Service

The Bombay High Court was hearing a plea against the arbitrary placement of doctors for a mandatory period of one year. The petitioners prayed...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -