High Courts Clamp Down on Procedural Lapses and Trial Delays in Landmark Rulings

In a significant reinforcement of constitutional safeguards, High Courts in Kerala and Punjab & Haryana have delivered powerful judgments aimed at curbing police overreach and addressing systemic trial delays. The Kerala High Court has redefined the commencement of the 24-hour detention period, tying it to the effective curtailment of liberty rather than the formal time of arrest. Concurrently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a stern rebuke to the subordinate judiciary for its "casual approach" to criminal trials, particularly those involving senior citizens, underscoring the inviolable right to a speedy trial.

These rulings, while addressing different facets of the criminal justice system, collectively signal a move towards greater accountability for both law enforcement and the judiciary, reaffirming the supremacy of fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.

---

Kerala High Court: Redefining "Arrest" to Combat Unrecorded Detention

In a landmark decision with far-reaching implications for police procedure and the rights of the accused, the Kerala High Court in Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau has held that the 24-hour period for producing an accused before a magistrate commences from the moment a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, not from the time of formal arrest recorded by the police.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, delivering the judgment, directly addressed a common and pernicious practice used by investigative agencies. "The technique of not recording the arrest under one pretext or the other is often resorted to under the guise of investigation," the court observed. "Brutalities of police generally occur during these periods of uncontrolled authority. Unless there is a check, such unrecorded periods of custody can be the source of human rights violation."

This judgment pivots on the interpretation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, which mandates that an arrested person be produced before the nearest magistrate within 24 hours. The court ruled that any form of detention, whether by physical restraint or submission to authority, constitutes an "arrest" under Section 43 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), irrespective of when the arrest memo is formally prepared.

Case Background and Legal Reasoning

The ruling was delivered while granting bail to Biswajit Mandal, an accused in a drug case, who was taken into custody by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) at 3 p.m. on January 25, 2025. However, his formal arrest was recorded nearly 23 hours later, at 2 p.m. the following day. He was ultimately produced before a magistrate at 8 p.m. on January 26, over 29 hours after his initial detention.

The court, appointing two law students as amici curiae, delved into the core of what constitutes "arrest." Relying on Supreme Court precedents like D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. , the judgment emphasized that liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21 and its deprivation cannot be masked by procedural subterfuge.

"The failure, refusal or omission to record an arrest or continuation of an interrogation for prolonged periods without recording arrest, shall not preclude those periods of curtailed liberty as constituting arrest," Justice Thomas declared.

Implications for Legal Practice and Law Enforcement

This ruling effectively closes a loophole that allowed for unmonitored and "unrecorded" custody, a period when detainees are most vulnerable to coercion and abuse. For legal practitioners, this provides a potent new ground for challenging detention and seeking bail. Defence counsels can now meticulously scrutinize the timeline from the moment of initial contact with law enforcement to the time of production before a magistrate, arguing that any delay beyond 24 hours from the point of "effective detention" renders the custody illegal.

For law enforcement agencies, this judgment necessitates a fundamental shift in procedure. They can no longer informally detain individuals for extended "investigation" or "questioning" without the clock on their constitutional obligations starting to tick. Every moment a person's freedom of movement is restricted by police authority will now be counted towards the 24-hour limit, demanding greater transparency and adherence to constitutional mandates.

---

Punjab & Haryana High Court: A Clarion Call Against Judicial Lethargy and Trial Delays

In a parallel development championing procedural justice, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Col Sukhwinder Singh Dhillon vs State of Punjab , has taken a strong stance against inordinate delays in the criminal justice system. Justice NS Shekawat, observing the "shocking" and "casual manner" in which a trial court handled a case involving a 76-year-old army veteran, directed the lower court to conclude the trial within a fixed timeframe and ordered the District and Sessions Judge to sensitize all judicial officers against such lethargy.

The court’s order is a powerful commentary on the systemic ailments of trial delays, liberal grant of exemptions to the accused, and the resulting erosion of the fundamental right to a speedy trial, a cornerstone of Article 21.

Case Background and Court's Outrage

The petitioner, a decorated army officer, was the victim of an online scam amounting to ₹58.68 lakhs. The challan in his case was filed in September 2021. Yet, in nearly four years, only two of the witnesses had been examined. The court noted with dismay that the case was listed on 61 dates, with the accused strategically delaying proceedings by seeking repeated and often frivolous exemptions.

Justice Shekawat expressed his shock at the trial court's leniency. "The applications for exemption from personal appearance were moved before the Court and 30 exemptions from personal appearance were granted to Khurshid Ahmed, accused, whereas 10 exemptions from personal appearance were granted to Surajit Gayen... This clearly shows that the Court proceedings were held in a very casual manner and it is never expected that the leniency should be shown to the accused in such serious crimes."

Citing seminal Supreme Court judgments like Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak , the High Court reiterated that a speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty. The court underscored that while determining undue delay, the "balancing test" must be applied, but in this instance, the scales had been unjustly tipped in favour of the accused through judicial inaction.

Directions and Broader Significance

The High Court not only directed the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months but also took the extraordinary step of mandating systemic correction. It ordered the District and Sessions Judge of S.A.S. Nagar to convene a meeting of all judicial officers to advise them against adopting a "casual approach," to grant exemptions sparingly, and to prioritize cases involving senior citizens.

This judgment serves as a critical precedent for litigants frustrated by endless adjournments. It empowers them to approach higher courts under Section 528 of the BNSS to seek directions for expediting trials. For the subordinate judiciary, it is a stark reminder of their constitutional duty to ensure that justice is not just done but is also delivered in a timely manner, and that court proceedings must not be allowed to be hijacked by "delaying tactics."

Conclusion: A Unified Push for Constitutional Accountability

Though originating from different High Courts and addressing distinct procedural issues, these two judgments resonate with a common theme: the uncompromising enforcement of constitutional rights within the criminal justice system. The Kerala High Court’s ruling fortifies the protections of Article 22(2) at the pre-trial stage, shielding individuals from the perils of unrecorded police custody. The Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, on the other hand, breathes new life into the right to a speedy trial under Article 21, holding the judiciary itself accountable for ensuring its implementation.

Together, they represent a robust judicial pushback against procedural apathy and abuse of power, offering crucial tools for legal professionals to advocate for their clients and reinforcing the principle that fairness, transparency, and expedition are not mere procedural ideals, but non-negotiable pillars of justice.