In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials vs .

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1950

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
In Re: To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies In Criminal Trials
Miscellaneous Application No. 505/2022 in SMW(Crl) No. 1/2017 With MA 1836/2021 in SMW(Crl) No. 1/2017 (PIL-W)
Decided On : 28-04-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
By Courts Motion, AOR, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv (A.C), Mr. R Basant, Sr. Adv (A.C), Mr. K. Parameshwar, AOR (A.C), Mr. A Karthik, Adv, Mr. Mehaak Jaggi, Adv, Mr. Vishnu, Adv, Ms. A Sregurupriya, Adv, Mr. Prasad Hegde, Adv, Ms. Shubhangi Jain, Adv., Mr. Yash Giri, Adv., Mr. Bharat Monga, Adv., Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv., Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR, Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR, Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR, Ms. Eliza Bar, Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar - I, AOR, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Subodh S. Patil, AOR, Ms. Supriya Patil, Adv., Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR, Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, AOR, Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR, Mr. G. Prakash, AOR, Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR, Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR, Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR, Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv., Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv., Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv., Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv., Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR, Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv., Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv., Mr. Krishna Shree Devee, Adv., Mr. Saurabh Choudhary, Adv., Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR, Mr. T.K. Nayak, Adv., Mr. Shaurya Sahay, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Mr. Akash Singh, Adv., Mr. Preeti Singh, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR, Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv., Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, A.G. Punjab, Mr. R.K. Rathore, Adv., Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR, Mr. Manish Singhvi, Sr Adv, Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv, Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Atul Jha, Adv., Ms. Shruti Jose, Adv., Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv., Mr. Sunil Saraogi, Adv., Mr. Narendra Kumar, AOR, Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv./AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., AoR., Ms. Nupur Sharma, Adv., Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Adv., Ms. Jessica Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Mr. Jatindeer Kumar Sethi, Dy.A.G., Mr. Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, AOR, Ms. Garima Prasad, Sr. Adv./AAG, Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR, Mr. Suraj Singh, Adv., Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR, Mr. Suhaan Mukerji, Adv., Mr. Aditya Prakash, Adv., Mr. Nikhil Parikshith, Adv., Mr. Vishal Prasad, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Manchanda, Adv., Mr. Sayandeep Pahari, Adv., Mr. Tanmay Sinha, Adv., PLR Chamberes & Co., AOR, Ms. G. Indira, AOR, Mr. Shubham Bhalla, AOR, Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee LD. ASG., Mr. K.M Natraj, Ld. ASG., Mr. R. Balasubramaniam, Sr. Adv., Mr. Pranay Ranjan Adv., Mr. Anmol Chandan Adv., Mr. Sachin Sharma Adv., Ms. Neela khedar Gokhale Adv., Mr. Tathagat, Adv., Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv., Ms. Janhvi Prakash, Adv., Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv., Mr. S. K. Singhania, Adv., Mrinal Elkar Mazumdar, Adv., Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR, Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Mr. Amrish Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR, Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR, Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv., Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR, Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv., Ms. Pragya Barsaiyan, Adv., Mr. S.V. Raju, Ld. ASG, Mr. Malak Manish Bhatt, AOR, Ms. Sneha Kalita, AOR, Ms.Nanda Devi Adv., Ms.Jessy Kurian, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Pachnanda, Sr Adv, Ms. Avni Sharma, Adv, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, AOR, Mr. Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. P.N. Ravindran, Sr.Adv., Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR, Ms. Anupama Kumar, Adv., Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, AOR, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv., Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Sharan Thakur, Adv., Mahesh Thakur, AOR, Mr. Siddharth Thakur, Adv., Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv., Mr. Ajay Kanojiya, Adv., Mr. Bishwendra Singh, Adv., Mr. Sibo Sankar Mishra, AOR, M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR, Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR, Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR, Mr. Akshay C. Shrivastava, Adv., Ms. Bihu Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Adv., Mr. Avneesh Arputham, Adv., Ms. Anuradha Arputham, Adv., M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR, Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR, Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Ms. Mukti Chaudhry, AOR, Ms. Uttara Babbar, AOR, Mr. Manan Bansal, Adv, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Adv., Ms. Radhika Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Birjkant Mishra, Adv., Ms. Madhumita Mishra, Adv., Vipin Gupta, AOR, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv., Ms. Sangeeta Singh Saini, Adv., Mr. Amit Kumar, AOR, Mr. Mahfooz A. Nazki, AOR, Mr. Polanki Gowtham, Adv., Mr. Shaik Mohamad Haneef, Adv., Mr. T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Adv., Mr. K.V. Girish Chowdary, Adv., Ms. Rajeshwari Mukherjee, Adv., Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, Adv., Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR, Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR, Ms. Anu K Joy, Adv, Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv, Mr. Shekhar Raj Sharma, DAG Haryana, Mr. Paras Dutta, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, AOR,

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Directions regarding criminal trials - Court directed incorporation of Draft Rules, 2021 by High Courts and state governments within prescribed timelines - Compliance to be reported - Non-compliance by certain High Courts and state governments noted - Specific rules on bail applications emphasized. (Paras 1-5)

(B) High Courts are mandated to modify existing rules governing criminal trials and ensure timely compliance with directions issued by the Supreme Court. (Paras 2, 3)

(C) Consequential amendments to police and other manuals by state governments are required to facilitate compliance with Draft Rules. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The Supreme Court reviewed compliance with its previous order directing modifications and implementation measures related to criminal trials and bail procedures.

Findings of Court:
Several High Courts and state governments failed to comply with the directions; a timeframe was set for compliance with reporting mandates.

Issues: The need for timely reforms in criminal trial procedures and adherence to specified guidelines for bail applications.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of efficient criminal justice procedures and the responsibility of judicial and state authorities to adhere to mandated reforms within stipulated timelines.

Result: Non-compliance acknowledged, with directives issued for adherence.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

The Supreme Court directed High Courts and state governments to incorporate the Draft Rules, 2021, into their existing rules governing criminal trials within six months from the order date, including necessary modifications and notifications. The cooperation of the concerned departments and formal notifications through the Official Gazette were also mandated (!) .
A compliance status report indicated that some High Courts had not yet incorporated the Draft Rules as part of their criminal trial rules. Those High Courts that failed to comply within the initial six-month period were granted an additional four weeks to do so, along with a requirement to file a status report (!) .
Most State Governments and Union Territories had not carried out the required consequential amendments to police and other manuals. Some delays were due to the non-receipt of formulated rules from High Courts. All State Governments and Union Territories were directed to comply within eight weeks, with compliance reports to be served on a designated officer before the next hearing (!) .
Clarification was sought regarding para 17(i) of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice concerning bail procedures. The Court accepted that the provision should be read as mandating the furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned, and that the prison authorities should also furnish the bail order to the accused (!) (!) .
The next hearing was scheduled for 21st July 2022 at 2:00 p.m. (!) .

Please let me know if you need further elaboration or specific legal advice related to this document.

Table of Content
1. guidelines issued for criminal trial rules (Para 1)
2. compliance status and directives for high courts and states (Para 2 , 3)
3. clarification on bail order issuance (Para 4 , 5)
4. next hearing scheduled (Para 6)

ORDER :

1. By an order dated 20.04.2021, this Court directed the High Courts and state governments to take the following steps:

(b) The state governments, as well as the Union of India (in relation to investigating agencies in its control) shall carry out consequential amendments to their police and other manuals, within six months from today. This direction applies, specifically in respect of Draft Rules 1-3. The appropriate forms and guidelines shall be brought into force, and all agencies instructed accordingly, within six months from today.”

2. A note has been submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae showing the status of compliance of the directions issued on 20.04.2021. A few High Courts have not taken steps to incorporate the Draft Rules as part of the rules governing criminal trials. It is relevant to note that six months’ time was granted to the High Courts to implement the directions given on 20.04.2021. Such of those High Courts which have not complied with the directions, are granted four weeks’ time to comply with the order passed by this Court on 20.04.2021 and file a status report.

3. Most of the State Governments/Union Territories have not carried out the consequential amendments to the Police and other manuals. Some State Governments could not carry out the amendments on account of not having received the rules formulated by the High Courts, as directed by this Court. All the State Governments/Union Territories are directed to comply with the directions issued by this Court on 20.04.2021 within a period of 8 weeks from today and report compliance. The status reports by the High Courts and the compliance reports by the State Governments shall be served on Mr. K.Parameshwar a week before the date of next hearing.

4. The learned Amicus Curiae sought a clarification relating to para 17(i) of the Draft Rules of Criminal Practice, which is as under:

i) The application for bail in non-bailable cases must ordinarily be disposed off within a period of 3 to 7 days from the date of first hearing. If the application is not disposed off within such period, the Presiding Officer shall furnish reasons thereof in the order itself. Copy of the order and the reply to the bail application or status report (by the police or prosecution) if any, shall be furnished to the accused and to the accused on the date of pronouncement of the order itself.”

5. We accept the submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae that para 17 (i) of the Draft Rules should be read as mandating the furnishing of the bail order to the prison concerned. We are also of the opinion that the bail order should be furnished by the prison authorities to the accused.

6. List this matter on 21.07.2022 at 2.00 p.m.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document