In a significant order addressing systemic delays in the criminal justice system, the Supreme Court of India has issued a comprehensive set of directions to all High Courts to ensure the expeditious conduct of trials. While declining a plea by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to cancel the bail of an accused in a rape case, a bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan used the opportunity to decry the “common practice” of trial courts flouting the statutory mandate for day-to-day hearings, particularly after the examination of witnesses has commenced.
The Court directed that the trial in the present case be completed by December 31, 2025, and mandated that its order be circulated by all High Courts to the district judiciary to enforce compliance with procedural law aimed at preventing delays.
Case Background
The matter reached the Supreme Court after the CBI filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order that had granted bail to the respondent, Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, in a rape case. At the time the High Court granted relief on September 24, 2024, the respondent had been in custody for three years and five months. By the time the Supreme Court heard the matter, he had been out on bail for nearly a year.
During a hearing on September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court noted that the trial court had commenced recording evidence and the victim was in the witness box. However, it expressed alarm that the victim’s further examination was adjourned by four months to December 18, 2025. The Court observed, “By granting time for further examination, the trial court could be said to have unwittingly facilitated the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses. This is something which we should not ignore as it is a matter of grave concern.”
The bench had then sought a status report from the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st-cum-Special Court, Tamluk, Distt. Purba Medinipur, demanding an explanation for the “piecemeal” examination of the victim.
Trial Court’s Explanation and Prosecution’s Stance
In a report dated September 11, 2025, the trial judge explained that the adjournment was necessitated after the victim “suddenly fell ill” during her testimony on August 25, 2025, and was unable to continue. The long subsequent date was fixed due to a heavy caseload of 4,731 pending cases, including priority custody trials under the NDPS Act, and the impending month-long Durga Puja vacation. Following the Supreme Court’s inquiry, the trial court preponed the victim’s next hearing to October 24, 2025.
The CBI, represented by Additional Solicitor General Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, informed the Court that the prosecution intended to examine 30 witnesses, a number that had been reduced from an initial list of 60.
The Supreme Court’s Analysis and Rebuke
The Supreme Court expressed its disapproval of both the prolonged adjournment and the large number of proposed witnesses. “We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape,” the bench remarked, emphasizing that it is the “quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity.”
The judgment extensively analyzed Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which mandates that once witness examination begins, the trial “shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined,” unless an adjournment beyond the next day is necessary for recorded reasons.
The Court lamented the widespread disregard for this provision, stating, “We are at pains to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said mandate with impunity. Even when witnesses are present, cases are adjourned on far less serious reasons or even on flimsy grounds.”
Citing a line of its previous judgments, including State of U.P. v. Shambhu Nath Singh and Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab, the Court reiterated established legal principles:
- Once examination of witnesses starts, the trial must continue day-to-day.
- When witnesses are present in court, they must be examined, and an adjournment can only be granted for “special reasons to be recorded in writing.”
- Inconvenience of an advocate is not a “special reason” for adjournment.
- Deferring cross-examination for a long time after the examination-in-chief is an “anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial.”
The bench firmly linked the right to a speedy trial to the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, referencing landmark cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar and A.R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak.
Final Decision and Directions for All Courts
While censuring the trial’s handling, the Court concluded it was “not persuaded to set aside the bail” since the respondent had been released for almost a year. Instead, it focused on remedial measures to prevent future delays.
The Court directed all High Courts to issue a circular to their respective district judiciaries, incorporating the following mandates:
- Proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.
- Once witness examination begins, it must continue day-to-day until all witnesses in attendance are examined, with exceptions only for “special reasons” recorded in writing.
- No adjournment shall be granted when a witness is present, except for special recorded reasons.
- Adjournments to suit an advocate’s convenience should not be granted, barring exceptional circumstances like a bereavement.
- In case of non-cooperation from the accused or counsel, the court may consider cancelling bail, appointing an amicus curiae, or imposing costs.
- Presiding officers should create a schedule of working days for witness examination in advance, in consultation with counsel.
- Summons may be handed to the Public Prosecutor for service on witnesses to ensure their presence as per the schedule.
The Supreme Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial and deliver a judgment by December 31, 2025, and ordered the respondent to fully cooperate with the proceedings.
