Supreme Court addresses delays in criminal appeals: Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: March 28, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 249
Judges: Adarsh Kumar Goel, J., Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Can the justice system ensure timely resolution of criminal appeals, especially when individuals have spent a significant portion of their sentence in custody? The Supreme Court of India, in *Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh*, grapples with this critical question, addressing the systemic delays that plague the Indian judicial system. This case highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure that the right to a speedy trial, a fundamental right, is not undermined by procedural delays. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The appellant, Krishna Kant Tamrakar, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 148, 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of one Shahid on June 23, 2005. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The appellant applied for bail while his appeal against the conviction was pending before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. His bail application was rejected by the High Court, even after he had spent more than ten years in custody. This led to the appeal before the Supreme Court, raising concerns about the delay in hearing criminal appeals and the potential for such delays to render the remedy of appeal meaningless.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment. He then appealed to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and applied for bail. The High Court rejected his bail application, observing that the evidence did not warrant granting bail. The appellant then filed a second bail application, which was also rejected. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the fact that the appellant had been in custody for over ten years without his appeal being heard. The Supreme Court then issued a notice to address the issue of delay in hearing appeals and sought assistance from the Attorney General of India and an amicus curiae.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted that access to speedy justice is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court also referred to Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 which provides timelines for filing charge sheets. The Court noted that the issue of delay in the judicial system has been a subject of consideration in various decisions and reports, including the 245th Report of the Law Commission of India. The Court also referred to the United States Speedy Trial Act, 1974.

Arguments

The learned Amicus Curiae emphasized that timely justice is essential for the Rule of Law and a fundamental right. They highlighted international conventions and the need for a practical system for speedy disposal of appeals. They referred to the 245th Report of the Law Commission of India, which analyzed judge strength and recommended an increase in the number of judges. The Amicus also discussed case management practices in England and Wales. The learned Attorney General submitted that the Government has adopted a coordinated approach to assist the judiciary by providing better infrastructure, increasing the strength of judges, and implementing technology. They highlighted the eCourts Mission Mode Project and the National Judicial Data Grid.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether, having regard to the nature of jurisdiction of the High Court and the present volume of the work, the expectation for speedy disposal of criminal appeals is realistic or there is need for re-engineering of the judicial structure.
2. Whether there is need to revisit the existing system of appointment of judges at all levels.
3. What can be the mechanism to plan and oversee the best management practices, including employment of technology, for optimum performance and righteous conduct.
4. How uncalled for frequent strikes obstructs access to justice and what steps are required to remedy the situation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on several authorities, including:

• Kashmira Singh versus State of Punjab [1977] 4 SCC 291 – Supreme Court of India
• Vineet Narayan versus Union of India [1996] 2 SCC 199 – Supreme Court of India
• Prakash Singh versus Union of India [2006] 8 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
• State of Punjab versus Brijeshwar Singh [2016] 6 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [2016] 8 SCC 509 – Supreme Court of India
• Imtiaz Ahmad versus State of U.P. [2012] 2 SCC 688 – Supreme Court of India
• P. Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka [2002] 4 SCC 578 – Supreme Court of India
• Imtiyaz Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [2017] 3 SCC 658 – Supreme Court of India
• Akhtari Bi versus State of M.P. [2001] 4 SCC 355 – Supreme Court of India
• Radhey Shyam versus Chhabi Nath [2015] 5 SCC 423 – Supreme Court of India
• Sita Ram versus State of U.P. [1979] 2 SCC 656 – Supreme Court of India
• Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited versus Essar Power Limited [2016] 9 SCC 103 – Supreme Court of India
• Dadu alias Tulsidas versus State of Maharashtra [2000] 8 SCC 437 – Supreme Court of India
• All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India [1992] 1 SCC 119 – Supreme Court of India
• All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India [2002] 4 SCC 247 – Supreme Court of India
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association versus Union of India [1993] 4 SCC 441 – Supreme Court of India
• Special President Reference under Article 143(1) Relating to Judges Transfer and Appointment [1998] 7 SCC 739 – Supreme Court of India
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association versus Union of India [2016] 5 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
• In Re: Sri Justice C.S. Karnan [2017] 7 SCC 1 – Supreme Court of India
• Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. [2003] 2 SCC 45 – Supreme Court of India
• Mahipal Singh Rana versus State of Uttar Pradesh [2016] 8 SCC 335 – Supreme Court of India
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar – Supreme Court of India
• Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India [2017] 5 SCC 702 – Supreme Court of India
• Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor [2001] 1 SCC 118 – Supreme Court of India

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by the Amicus Curiae and the Attorney General. The Court also considered various authorities, including previous judgments and reports of the Law Commission. The Court emphasized the fundamental right to speedy justice under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

The Court considered the following authorities:

• Kashmira Singh versus State of Punjab [1977] 4 SCC 291*: The Court used this case to highlight the issue of prolonged custody pending appeal.
• Vineet Narayan versus Union of India [1996] 2 SCC 199*: The Court used this case to emphasize the legal obligations of government agencies.
• Prakash Singh versus Union of India [2006] 8 SCC 1*: The Court used this case to highlight the need for police reforms to ensure speedy and quality investigation.
• State of Punjab versus Brijeshwar Singh [2016] 6 SCC 1*: The Court used this case to emphasize the need for a fair and transparent mechanism for appointing government advocates.
• Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan [2016] 8 SCC 509*: The Court used this case to highlight the recommendation to incorporate access to speedy justice as a fundamental right.
• Imtiaz Ahmad versus State of U.P. [2012] 2 SCC 688*: The Court used this case to highlight the issue of delay in disposal of criminal cases.
• P. Ramchandra Rao versus State of Karnataka [2002] 4 SCC 578*: The Court used this case to highlight the view against mandatory time limits for case disposal.
• Imtiyaz Ahmad versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [2017] 3 SCC 658*: The Court used this case to highlight the directions on review of cadre strength in the judiciary.
• Akhtari Bi versus State of M.P. [2001] 4 SCC 355*: The Court used this case to highlight the request to Chief Justices to expedite disposal of old criminal appeals.
• Radhey Shyam versus Chhabi Nath [2015] 5 SCC 423*: The Court used this case to differentiate between constitutional remedy under Article 227 and statutory appeal.
• Sita Ram versus State of U.P. [1979] 2 SCC 656*: The Court used this case to differentiate between constitutional remedy under Article 227 and statutory appeal.
• Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Limited versus Essar Power Limited [2016] 9 SCC 103*: The Court used this case to highlight the undesirability of overburdening Constitutional Courts.
• Dadu alias Tulsidas versus State of Maharashtra [2000] 8 SCC 437*: The Court used this case to emphasize that one trial and one appeal are components of fair justice.
• All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India [1992] 1 SCC 119*: The Court used this case to highlight the direction to take steps for All India Judicial Service.
• All India Judges’ Association versus Union of India [2002] 4 SCC 247*: The Court used this case to highlight the direction to follow uniform method of recruitment.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association versus Union of India [1993] 4 SCC 441*: The Court used this case to highlight the Collegium system of appointment of judges.
• Special President Reference under Article 143(1) Relating to Judges Transfer and Appointment [1998] 7 SCC 739*: The Court used this case to highlight the Collegium system of appointment of judges.
• Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association versus Union of India [2016] 5 SCC 1*: The Court used this case to highlight the striking down of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC).
• In Re: Sri Justice C.S. Karnan [2017] 7 SCC 1*: The Court used this case to highlight the need to revisit the process of appointments and set up a mechanism for corrective measures.
• Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. [2003] 2 SCC 45*: The Court used this case to highlight the ruling that lawyers have no right to strike.
• Mahipal Singh Rana versus State of Uttar Pradesh [2016] 8 SCC 335*: The Court used this case to highlight the power of High Courts to frame rules for permitting advocates to practice.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secy., State of Bihar*: The Court used this case to emphasize the litigant’s right to speedy justice.
• Hussain & Anr. v. Union of India [2017] 5 SCC 702*: The Court used this case to deprecate the practice of boycotting the Court.
• Ramon Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Subhash Kapoor [2001] 1 SCC 118*: The Court used this case to highlight that lawyers cannot claim a right to strike without loss to them.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure speedy justice, a fundamental right under the Constitution. The Court was concerned about the systemic delays in the judicial system, particularly in the hearing of criminal appeals. The Court also emphasized the need for judicial reforms, including filling vacancies, improving case management, and adopting technology. The impact of frequent strikes by lawyers on the administration of justice was also a significant factor.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

The court rejected any interpretation that would allow for delays in the judicial process, emphasizing that speedy justice is a constitutional mandate. The court also considered the need to balance the independence of the judiciary with the need for accountability and performance measurement.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The fundamental right to speedy justice as enshrined in Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
• The need to address systemic delays in the judicial system, particularly in the hearing of criminal appeals.
• The importance of judicial reforms, including filling vacancies, improving case management, and adopting technology.
• The negative impact of frequent strikes by lawyers on the administration of justice.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

“There can be no dispute that access to speedy justice is part of fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.”

“The dispensation of justice must not stop for any reason. The strike by lawyers have lowered the image of the courts in the eyes of the general public.”

“The first thing in my judgement we must do is to hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives.”

There was no dissenting opinion in this case. Both judges on the bench agreed on the need for systemic reforms to ensure speedy justice.

Key Takeaways

The practical implications of this judgment include:

• The need for the government to consider restructuring the judicial system to decongest Constitutional Courts.
• The need to consider a central selection mechanism for filling vacancies in courts other than Constitutional Courts.
• The need for a body of full-time experts to assist in identifying, scrutinizing, and evaluating candidates for judicial appointments.
• The need for measures to curb frequent strikes by lawyers and hold office bearers accountable.
• The Ministry of Law and Justice is required to present quarterly reports on strikes, loss caused, and action proposed.

The potential future impact of this judgment includes:

• Potential reforms in the judicial system to ensure speedy justice.
• Changes in the appointment process of judges to ensure the selection of the best available talent.
• Measures to curb frequent strikes by lawyers and ensure the smooth functioning of the courts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Union of India to file an affidavit within three months, outlining the steps taken in light of the observations made in the judgment. The Ministry of Law and Justice was also directed to present a quarterly report on strikes/abstaining from work, loss caused, and action proposed.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the right to speedy justice is a fundamental right and that systemic reforms are needed to ensure that this right is not undermined by delays in the judicial system. The case emphasizes the need for a holistic approach to address the issue of delays, including judicial reforms, technology adoption, and measures to curb strikes by lawyers. The judgment also highlights the importance of accountability and performance measurement in the judicial system.

Conclusion

The case of *Krishna Kant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh* is a significant judgment that addresses the critical issue of delays in the Indian judicial system. The Supreme Court’s intervention highlights the urgent need for reforms to ensure that the right to a speedy trial, a fundamental right, is not undermined by procedural delays. The judgment provides a comprehensive analysis of the issues, including the systemic delays, the need for judicial reforms, and the impact of strikes by lawyers. The Court’s directions to the Union of India and the Ministry of Law and Justice demonstrate its commitment to ensuring that the recommendations are implemented. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of a well-functioning justice system in upholding the rule of law and protecting the rights of citizens.