SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 9831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. BABU, J
MATHAI KUNJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
OP(CRL.) NO. 703 OF 2025 | CRIME NO.73/2020 | SC NO.806 OF 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI.NIDHIN RAJ VETTIKKADAN, SMT.ANJALA NAZRIN SUBAIR, SHRI.ANJO FRANCIS, SMT.MEERA NAIR.I.P
For the Respondents: SRI.N R SANGEETHA RAJ, PP

Delay in judicial proceedings due to absence of appointed counsel under the SC/ST (POA) Act warrants court intervention for timely resolution.

Headnote:This Original Petition (Criminal) was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to address the delay in proceedings of S.C No. 806/2020 under the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The Court noted the lack of a Special Public Prosecutor as the cause of the delay and recorded the Special Judge's submission. The petition is disposed of with directions on the appointment of the Special Public Prosecutor.

Table of Content
1. delay in judicial proceedings due to absence of appointed counsel. (Para 1 , 2)
2. judicial acknowledgment of procedural delay and need for counsel appointment. (Para 3)

K.BABU, J.

--------------------------------------

O.P (Crl) No.703 of 2025 ---------------------------------------

Dated this the 10th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT The prayers in this Original Petition (Criminal) filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows:

“(i) To call for the records of the S.C No. 806/2020, pending before the Special Court for the trial of offences under SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 , Ernakulam and to examine the correctness and legality leading to delay in the proceedings.

(ii) To issue a direction to the 1st respondent to appoint Special Public Prosecutor in Special Court for the trial of offences under SC and ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 , Ernakulam.

(iii) Issue appropriate order or direction as this Hon’ble court may be fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court obtained a report from the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge submitted that non-availability of the duly appointed Special Public Prosecutor is the reason for the delay. It is further submitted that the Special Public Prosecutor has not yet been appointed.

3. The submission made by the learned Special Judge is recorded.

The Original Petition (Criminal) is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top