IMTIYAZ AHMAD versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 1 S.C.R. 779 · Decided: 01-02-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. GANGULY · Disposal: Hearing Adjourned
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 1 S.C.R. 779 
IMTIYAZ AHMAD 
v. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 254-262 of 2012) 
FEBRUARY 1, 2012 
[ASOK KUMAR ~ANGULY AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.) 
Administration of Justice 
A 
8 
Stay by High Courts of investigations and trials - c 
Resulting in pendency of such cases for long - Held: The fact 
finding exercise directed by Supreme Court has revealed a 
problem of serious concern -.. It is simply unacceptable for a 
case to remain pending for three decades under any 
circumstances, and more so when the pendency is a 
D 
consequence of the stay proceedings granted by High Court 
- Unduly long delay has the effect of bringing about blatant 
violation of the Rule of Law and adverse impact on the 
common man's access to justice - A person's access to 
justice is a guaranteed fundamental right under the 
E 
Constitution and, particularly, Article 21 - Access to Justice 
must be defined in terms of ensuring that legal and judicial 
outcome is just and equitable - The steps taken by the 
. Government of India to ensure speedy justice and to reduce 
delay, brought to the notice of the Court - Directions given by 
Supreme Court with regard to exercise of extra-ordinary power 
F 
by High Courts to grant stay of investigations and trials -
Directions also given to the Law Commission which itself is 
seized with the issue and is making investigation having 
regard to its terms of reference - Matter to appear before the 
appropriate Bench for consideration of the recommendations 
G 
of the Law Commission and for further directions - Constitution 
of India, 1950 - Articles 21, 136 and 142. 
779 
H 
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
R. Ramachandra Rav v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 
sec 578 - referred to. 
Delcourt v. Belgium [1970] ECHR 1 - referred to. 
14th Report of the Law Commission. and Nature of 
B Judicial Process by Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari (2002) 6 
sec (Jour) 1 - referred to. 
United Nations Development Programme, Access to 
Justice - Practice Note (2004); William H. Taft, The Delays 
c of the Law, Yale Law Journal. Vo1.18. No.1 (Nov., 1908, 
p.28); Belekar Memorial Lecture Series, Lecture delivered 
on August 31, 2002; Roscoe Pound, Social Justice and 
Legal Justice (Address delivered to the Allegheny County 
Bar Association, April 5, 1912; The Rule of Law by Tom 
0 Bingham, p. 85 - referred to. 
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 
(ICCPR), Article 14(3); European Charter on Fundamental 
Rights, Article 47; European Convention on Human Rights 
and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6; ECHR Article 6(1); 
E Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 8 and 16 
and South Africa's Constitution - referred to. 
Report of Lord Woolf submitted to Lord Chancellor 
in England: Final Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil 
F Justice System in England and Wales (Lord Woolf's Report), 
1996, Chapter 21, para 1 - referred to. 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference: 
[1970] ECHR 1 
(2002) 4 sec 578 
referred to 
referred to 
para 46 
para 51 
CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 254-262 of 2012. 
IMTIYAZ AHMAD v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & 781 
ORS. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 09.4.2003, 29.4.2003, 
A 
30.4.2003, 10.10.2003, 7.5.2004, 26.5.2005, 19.9.2006, 
27.9.2006, 6.10.2006 and 18.12.2008 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Allahabad in CRLWP No. 1786 of 2003. 
H.P. Raval, ASG, Gopal Subramaniam, Ratnakar Dash, 
B 
T.A. Khan, Padma Laxmi Nigam, B.V. Bairam Das, Sandeep 
S. Karhail, B.P. Singh Dhakray, Shakti Singh Dhakray, D.B. Raj 
Vohra, Rajeev K. Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, T.G. Narayanan 
Nair, K.N. Madhusoodhanan, Krishanand Pandeya, Amrendra 
Kr. Choubey, Anitha Shenoy for the appearing parties. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
GANGULY, J. 
Leave granted. 
1. 1-:eard learned counsel for the parties, including the 
learned Amicus Curiae. 
2. In these appeals, this Court is concerned with a case 
where orders were passed by the High Court on several dates 
after the registration of FIR and on stay order being granted, 
investigation, and framing of charges or trial thereafter in the 
matter remained pending in the High Court for a long period 
of time. The stay order dated 9.4.03 and several orders dated 
29.4.03, 30.4.03, 10.10.03, 7.5.04, 26.5.05, 19.9.06, 27.9.06, 
6.10.06 & 18.12.08 of the High Court passed thereafter have 
been impugned in these appeals. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
3. The questions which crop up in this case are of serious 
G 
magnit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.