LexKRISHANAKANT TAMRAKAR versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. KRISHANAKANT TAMRAKAR v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 470 of 2018) MARCH 28, 2018 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] Constitution of India: Arts. 14 and 21 – Access to speedy justice – Appellant-accused (sentenced to life imprisonment by trial court) was denied bail during pendency of his appeal before High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court on the ground that having been in custody for more than 10 years, remedy of appeal would be meaningless if he were to remain in custody for full term of sentence – Held: Grant of bail denied – Access to speedy justice is part of fundamental right under Arts. 14 and 21 – Direction issued as to remedy the problem of delay in hearing of criminal appeals – Administration of Justice – Bail. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Access to speedy justice is part of fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The National Commission to Review Working of the Constitution recommended that access to speedy justice may be incorporated as an express fundamental right. [Para 16] [1110-F] Vineet Narayan v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199 : [1996] 1 SCR 1053; Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1 : [2006] 6 Suppl. SCR 473 – relied on. Imtiaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 688 : [2012] 1 SCR 779; Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 : [2016] 9 SCR 560 – referred to. 2.1 The available figures show that long pendency of cases particularly of more than five years remains a serious challenge. In High Courts, 16.29 lakhs cases were more than five years old. 7.43 lakh cases were more than 10 years old. Since current disposal itself was less than the institution of fresh cases, there was no likelihood of old cases being decided in a reasonable time. There could not be increase of strength of High Court Judges [2018] 4 S.C.R. 1098 1098 A B C D E F G H 1099 beyond a limit. The system could not be top heavy. Volume of work in the High Court was likely to further increase on account of increased disposal of cases in subordinate courts with the increased strength of judges, infrastructure and other steps being taken. Disposal of cases in subordinate courts is not enough, if the same are thereafter held up in the High Courts. New laws are being enacted providing statutory remedies before the High Courts. Moreover, oversight mechanism for judges of the Constitutional Courts is not the same as for other Judges. While, there can be no doubt about need for such protection, appointment of large number of such judges can be counter productive. If number of Constitutional Courts is to be increased to match the volume of work being entrusted to such Courts, it may have its implication unless it is possible to find sufficient number of suitable persons. The fact that there are large number of vacancies in such Courts shows the difficulty in identifying adequate number of suitable persons for Constitutional Courts. Nature of work before the Constitutional Courts particularly laying down of law is time consuming. Such Courts cannot be overburdened. [Para 23] [1113-C-E; 1114-A-B] 2.2 In 124th Report of the Law Commission of India (1988) titled “High Court Arrears – A Fresh Look”, the Law Commission observed that wherever possible, proliferating appellate and wide original jurisdiction should be controlled and curtailed without impairing the quality of justice. It was observed that the approach of the Law Commission is to reduce number of appeals, set up specialist courts/tribunals to reduce the inflow of work to the High courts. In 272nd report, the Law Commission observed that the forum for challenging the order of tribunal should be appellate tribunals, which decision should be final. No statutory appeal should be provided before the High Courts or Supreme Court in routine manner. No action appears to have been taken on the said recommendations. [Paras 28, 30] [1116-D, F-G] 2.3 Since one trial and one appeal are considered to be components of fair system of administration of justice in criminal cases of serious nature, adjudication at the original forum and at one appellate forum must be within reasonable time which should not normally exceed one to two years, as noted by the Law KRISHANAKANT TAMRAKAR v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH A B C D E F G H 1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. Commission and the Malimath Commission. At the same time, multiple layers of remedie
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.