Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Expediting Trial Based on Third-Party Application: Sanjai Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2020) INSC 790 (16 December 2020)

Date of the Judgment: 16 December 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 790
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J., M.R. Shah, J.
Can a High Court direct a trial court to expedite a criminal trial based on an application from a third party who is not connected to the case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the limits of third-party intervention in criminal proceedings. The court held that a High Court cannot entertain an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) from a third party seeking to expedite a criminal trial. The bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and M.R. Shah, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case involves an appeal by Sanjai Tiwari against an order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The High Court had directed a trial court to expedite a criminal trial based on an application filed by a third party, respondent No. 2, who claimed to be a social activist. The appellant, Sanjai Tiwari, was accused in FIR No. 02/2006, registered by the Vigilance Department of Uttar Pradesh, for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Section 13(1)(c)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The FIR was based on a complaint by one R.K. Choudhary.

The appellant had previously challenged the vigilance inquiry in the High Court, which initially directed that no inquiry should proceed without examining the complainant. Subsequently, the Secretary, Vigilance, U.P. directed lodging of an FIR against the appellant and others. The appellant filed another writ petition, and the High Court stayed the order for lodging the FIR. Later, the High Court directed a preliminary investigation by the CBI in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL). The appellant’s initial writ petition was dismissed due to non-appearance of counsel. Following this, the Vigilance Department filed a charge-sheet against the appellant, leading to the criminal trial.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Respondent No. 2, claiming to be a social activist and advocate, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the High Court, seeking a direction to the Special Judge to expedite and conclude the trial. The High Court, without issuing notice to the appellant, directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial at the earliest. The appellant challenged this order in the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court erred in entertaining the application from a third party who had no locus standi.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and its application to third-party interventions in criminal proceedings. Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. states:
“Saving of inherent powers of High Court.—Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”

The Supreme Court also considered the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates the expeditious conclusion of trials involving offences under the Act.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The High Court erred in entertaining the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by respondent No. 2, who had no locus standi.
• The High Court passed the order without issuing notice to the appellant, who was an accused in the trial.
• The delay in the trial was not attributable to the appellant, as the proceedings were stayed by the High Court for a significant period.

State’s Submissions:

• Criminal trials involving offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act should be conducted on a day-to-day basis.
• No exception can be taken to the High Court’s order directing the trial court to expedite the proceedings.

Respondent No. 2’s Submissions:

• Respondent No. 2, in his application, stated that he was a social activist and an advocate with an urge to contribute positively to society.
• He claimed the application was not filed for personal interest.
• He contended that the trial was delayed due to tactics adopted by the accused persons.

The innovativeness of the argument lies in the appellant’s challenge to the locus standi of a third party in seeking to expedite a criminal trial, which is typically the State’s responsibility.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in entertaining an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by a third party, seeking a direction to expedite a criminal trial?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issue:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756 – The Supreme Court held that it is for the parties in a criminal case to raise all questions and challenge the proceedings initiated against them, and not for third parties under the garb of public interest litigants.

The Supreme Court also considered Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) to determine the inherent powers of the High Court.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The application filed by respondent No. 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations would not affect the criminal trial, and the trial court could expedite the trial, subject to any orders passed by the High Court in pending proceedings.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court followed the ratio in Janata Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others, (1993) 1 SCC 756, stating that third parties cannot interfere in criminal proceedings under the guise of public interest. The Court also considered the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and clarified that it does not extend to entertaining third-party applications for expediting trials.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that criminal proceedings are initiated and conducted by the State, and third parties without any direct connection to the case should not be allowed to interfere in such proceedings. The Court emphasized that allowing third-party interventions would disrupt the established legal process and undermine the rights of the accused. The Court also noted the procedural lapse of the High Court in not issuing notice to the appellant.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the fact that the respondent No. 2 was not directly affected by the criminal proceedings against the appellant. The Court reiterated that the responsibility for ensuring expeditious trials rests with the State and the prosecution, and not with self-proclaimed social activists.

The sentiment analysis of the Court’s reasoning indicates a strong emphasis on adherence to established legal procedures and the rights of the accused. The Court’s reasoning reflects a concern that allowing third-party intervention would lead to an abuse of the legal process.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to expedite the trial. However, it rejected this interpretation, holding that such powers cannot be invoked by a third party who has no connection to the case. The Court reasoned that allowing such interventions would lead to an abuse of the process of the court and undermine the rights of the accused.

The decision was based on the principle that criminal proceedings are initiated and conducted by the State, and the responsibility to ensure expeditious trials rests with the prosecution. The Court emphasized that third parties cannot interfere in criminal proceedings under the guise of public interest.

The Court stated, “It is the obligation of the State and the prosecution to ensure that all criminal trials are conducted expeditiously so that justice can be delivered to the accused if found guilty.” The Court also noted, “An application by a person who is in no way connected with the criminal proceeding or criminal trial under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot ordinarily be entertained by the High Court.” Further, it was held, “We are fully satisfied that respondent No.2 has no locus in the present case to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. asking the Court to expedite the hearing in criminal trial.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The bench unanimously agreed on the decision.

Key Takeaways

• A third party who is not connected to a criminal case has no locus standi to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to expedite the trial.
• The responsibility to ensure expeditious trials rests with the State and the prosecution.
• High Courts should not entertain applications from third parties seeking to interfere in criminal proceedings.
• The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by a third party to expedite a criminal trial.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions, but it clarified that the trial court could expedite the criminal trial, subject to any orders passed by the High Court in pending proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a third party who is not connected to a criminal case has no locus standi to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to expedite the trial. This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings are initiated and conducted by the State, and third parties cannot interfere in such proceedings. This clarifies the scope of Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and establishes that the inherent powers of the High Court cannot be invoked by third parties to expedite criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sanjai Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh clarifies the limitations on third-party interventions in criminal proceedings. The Court held that a High Court cannot direct a trial court to expedite a criminal trial based on an application from a third party who is not connected to the case. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal proceedings are the responsibility of the State and that third parties cannot interfere in such proceedings under the guise of public interest.