The Allahabad High Court sharply criticized a trial court in Prayagraj for its “lethargic” conduct in handling an extremely protracted criminal trial. The case involves a 73-year-old man, Shrish Kumar Malviya, who has been under prosecution for nearly two decades under Section 129 of the Representation of People Act. The High Court observed that despite the minor nature of the offence — punishable by a maximum of six months’ imprisonment — the case has dragged on for over 20 years, largely due to the trial court’s repeated adjournments and failure of the prosecution to present witnesses.
In its order, Justice Vivek Kumar Singh expressed deep concern over the institutional responsibility of the judiciary, stating that the aged accused seemed to be “victimized” by the delay and the trial court’s inaction. The Court pointed out that no prosecution witness has been produced even after 13 years of proceedings, and lamented that the trial court has been “liberally” granting adjournments to the prosecution instead of actively pushing the case forward. The High Court also noted that the chargesheet was filed in 2005, but the charge framing only happened in 2012 — seven years later.
Moreover, the Court noted that warrants had been issued against witnesses only in December 2023, despite the delay of nearly a decade. The bench emphasized that such lethargy in trial court functioning raises serious questions. According to the Court, the presiding judge appears to be ignoring clear directives and circulars issued by the High Court for the speedy disposal of old cases. It described the pattern of delay as “routine,” suggesting that there may be deeper systemic problems in how the subordinate court is managing aged dockets.
The High Court warned that accountability is indispensable for judges as much as for litigants. It underscored that the judiciary, like every organ of the state, must remain answerable to the people. In this case, the presiding judge of the trial court was admonished about his duty to prioritize old cases, not allow them to linger, and comply with orders from superior courts demanding swift resolution.
To remedy the situation, the High Court took the strong step of issuing a strict ultimatum. It ordered the trial court to conclude the trial within one month of the order. The Court also directed that if the prosecution fails to produce evidence on the very next date after the order, their opportunity to present further witnesses will be closed. This signifies a clear shift: the prosecution cannot prolong matters indefinitely through delay, and the court expects decisive action or closure of that phase.
In addition, the High Court placed the judicial officer presiding over the trial court “on notice.” It warned that failure to comply with the one-month timeline would attract disciplinary proceedings against the judge. To that effect, the Court directed the trial court to file a compliance report upon completion of the trial within the stipulated time. A copy of that order was to be sent to the District Judge of Prayagraj, ensuring oversight from senior judiciary.
The Court has set the matter down for a compliance check on January 6, 2026. By doing so, it has not only stressed the urgency for justice but also signalled that negligence or habitual delay by lower courts will not be tolerated.
In sum, the Allahabad High Court has taken a firm stand to protect the rights of an elderly accused who has borne the brunt of a sluggish justice system. It has used its supervisory powers to enforce accountability on the trial court, demanded speedy conclusion, and warned of disciplinary consequences for dereliction of judicial duty — reaffirming that justice delayed is not justice denied.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.