Madras HC Slams "Meaningless Ritual" of Summons Service After 12-Year Delay, Orders Strict E-Summons Compliance

CHENNAI – In a scathing indictment of systemic inertia, the Madras High Court has expressed its astonishment over a 12-year delay in the service of a summons in a criminal case, attributing the "surprising" lapse to the collective failure of both the police and the court registry. Justice B. Pugalendhi, while examining the case, highlighted a complete breakdown of procedural safeguards and called for the immediate and strict implementation of an e-summon system to prevent future occurrences of such gross delays that stagnate the wheels of justice.

The court's observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by a senior citizen, Ramasamy, who sought to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by his daughter-in-law in 2013. The case, involving offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, was taken on file by the trial court on June 18, 2013. However, the petitioner was only served with the summons an astonishing 12 years later, on June 4, 2025, a revelation that prompted the High Court's intervention.

A Systemic Failure: Police and Judiciary Held Accountable

In his detailed order, Justice Pugalendhi systematically deconstructed the procedural framework designed to ensure the timely service of summons, underscoring how multiple layers of checks and balances had failed. The court noted that the blame was not one-sided but rested squarely on both the law enforcement and judicial administration.

“While the police failed to cause service of summons in time, the Judicial Magistrate also failed to verify whether the summons was issued, and did not call for an explanation for non-service,” the court observed, pointing to a mutual dereliction of duty.

The court emphasized that a trio of legal provisions forms a robust procedural safeguard that was utterly disregarded in this instance.

"These three provisions — Standing Order 715, Section 67 of the BNSS, and Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice — form a complete procedural safeguard against delays in service of summons. They define the accountability structure between the Police and the Court Registry. Their object is to ensure that service of summons, which is the starting point of trial, is not reduced to a meaningless ritual."

The court lamented the outcome of this failure:

"However, in the present case, both institutions have failed in their respective obligations, thereby resulting in a 12-year stagnation of proceedings."

Deconstructing the Procedural Safeguards

Justice Pugalendhi meticulously outlined the specific rules that were breached:

1. Tamil Nadu Police Standing Order No. 715: This order mandates that every police station maintain a process register for all court-issued processes. Crucially, it requires the Inspector of Police to inspect this register every two months, cross-verify it with the court's records, and report any significant delays to the superintendent. This crucial oversight mechanism was clearly not followed.

2. Rule 29(11) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019: This rule dictates that if the police are unable to serve a summons, they must return it to the court on the specified date along with a sworn affidavit detailing the efforts made. This ensures the court is promptly informed of non-service and can take further action.

3. Section 67 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS): This provision outlines the procedure for substituted service. If a person cannot be found, the serving officer is required to affix a copy of the summons to a conspicuous part of their residence. The court can then, after an inquiry, declare the summons as duly served or order a fresh attempt.

The High Court concluded that the concurrent failure to adhere to these three interlinked provisions led to the justice system remaining in a state of paralysis for over a decade in this specific case.

The Way Forward: A Mandate for Technology

In response to the egregious delay, the court looked towards a technological solution that is already available but seemingly underutilized. The Director General of Police had previously issued proceedings (C.No. 44/PCW-WC/SCRB/2024, dated 13.08.2025) instructing all police personnel to use the "e-summon mobile application."

Seizing on this, Justice Pugalendhi mandated a collaborative effort to ensure its effective implementation. "If this is properly implemented, then this type of anomaly would not repeat again in future," the court asserted. It issued a directive to the Chief Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Director General of Police, the Registrar General of the High Court, and the Registrar (IT) to "work in tandem and ensure the immediate and strict compliance of e-summons." This directive aims to bridge the communication gap between the police and the judiciary, creating a digital trail and fostering real-time accountability.

No Relief for Petitioner Despite Delay

Despite the severe criticism of the procedural lapses, the High Court was not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner. The court clarified that a delay in the service of summons, by itself, does not constitute a valid ground for quashing a case, particularly when the trial has already commenced post-service.

The Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, had submitted a report attributing the delay to derelict officers and the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also confirmed that disciplinary action had been initiated against the erring personnel under the relevant service rules. Similarly, the Judicial Magistrate reported having acted swiftly upon assuming her duties in April 2025.

While acknowledging the police's responsive action in initiating disciplinary proceedings, the court noted that "a similar response was expected from the judiciary as well." Ultimately, the petitioner was directed to raise all his grounds, including the impact of the delay on his defense, before the trial court, which will now proceed with the case.

The case of Ramasamy v State of Tamil Nadu and Others serves as a powerful cautionary tale and a catalyst for administrative reform, highlighting how fundamental procedural missteps can profoundly undermine the efficiency and credibility of the entire criminal justice system.