SC Summons Allahabad HC Registrar Over 'Staggering' Backlog of 2,297 Criminal Appeals

New Delhi - In a significant move highlighting deep-seated concerns over systemic judicial delays, the Supreme Court of India has summoned the Registrar Judicial (Listing) of the Allahabad High Court to appear in person. The apex court is demanding a "complete working plan" to address the staggering pendency of criminal appeals, where thousands of convicts have languished in prison for over a decade awaiting a final hearing.

A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued the directive on October 14, 2025, ordering the Registrar to be present on October 16, 2025. This intervention underscores the constitutional crisis brewing within the appellate justice system, where the fundamental right to a speedy trial is being rendered illusory by procedural inertia. The Court's order stems from the case of Chatra Pal v. State of U.P. , a convict who has been incarcerated for more than 21 years while his criminal appeal, filed in 2010, has yet to be listed for hearing.

The Alarming Statistics of Delayed Justice

The gravity of the situation was laid bare in a report submitted by the Allahabad High Court itself. The Supreme Court noted with grave concern that, as of September 27, 2025, the High Court has a backlog of 2,297 criminal appeals where the accused have been incarcerated for over ten years. Even more distressingly, in 52 of these appeals , the period of incarceration has surpassed fifteen years.

The bench articulated the figures with stark clarity:

"we find that the same elusive of the steps taken for listing 2036+261 (total 2297) appeals in which the accused has been suffering incarceration for a period of more than ten years – there is no working plan in place; in fact, we find that there are at least 12+3+5+11+8+13 (total 52) pending cases in which the accused has been suffering from incarceration for a period of more than fifteen years.”

This data paints a grim picture of a system struggling under its own weight, where the process itself has become the punishment, eclipsing the substantive question of guilt or innocence that the appeals are meant to decide.

A "Conspicuously Silent" Report and a Demand for Accountability

The Supreme Court's frustration was palpable. The bench pointed out that it had previously directed the High Court to devise an effective plan for listing these long-pending appeals. However, the report submitted by the Registrar was deemed wholly inadequate and "conspicuously silent" on the very roadmap the Court had sought.

The Court specified the crucial information that was missing from the High Court's report, which it stated "could have been easily indicated": - The number of benches constituted and assigned to hear such appeals. - The status of service upon the parties. - The readiness of paper books required for the hearing of the appeals. - A detailed account of the difficulties faced in listing these appeals, with specific reasons.

The failure to provide this basic operational data led the Court to take the extraordinary step of summoning the Registrar. The order explicitly states:

“we direct the Registrar Judicial (Listing) who submitted the Report dated 27.09.2025, or the incumbent officer, to remain present in Court on the next date of hearing with complete working plan concerning listing and/or hearing of these appeals. Learned Chief Justice of the High Court be apprised of the passing of this order.”

This directive is not merely a procedural summons but a strong message demanding accountability and a concrete, actionable strategy to remedy a situation that infringes upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Human Cost: The Case of Chatra Pal

The catalyst for this judicial scrutiny is the plight of Chatra Pal, the petitioner-convict in the instant Special Leave Petition. Convicted in 2009 for an offence under Section 396 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, he filed his criminal appeal before the Allahabad High Court in 2010. In the same year, his plea for bail pending appeal under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.

For the subsequent fifteen years, his appeal has remained in judicial limbo, never being listed for a final hearing. Having already spent over 21 years in prison, his case has become emblematic of the systemic failure to provide timely appellate justice. His counsel, Senior Advocate Dr. Sofiya Begum, brought this egregious delay to the Supreme Court's attention, prompting the initial notice to the High Court's Registrar General on September 8, 2025. That notice sought answers to two simple yet profound questions: why an appeal from 2010 had not been heard, and what steps were being taken to dispose of appeals involving long-term incarceration.

Legal and Systemic Implications for the Judiciary

The Supreme Court's intervention in the administrative functioning of a High Court, while not unprecedented, is a measure of last resort. It signals a critical breakdown in case management and raises pressing questions about judicial infrastructure, resource allocation, and procedural efficiency.

• Violation of Article 21: The right to a speedy trial is an inalienable facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that this right extends to the appellate stage. An inordinate delay in hearing an appeal, especially when the appellant is incarcerated, effectively renders the right to appeal meaningless and amounts to a violation of fundamental rights.

• Efficacy of Section 389 Cr.P.C.: The provision for suspension of sentence and grant of bail pending appeal (Section 389 Cr.P.C.) is designed to mitigate the injustice of prolonged incarceration while an appeal is pending. However, when appeals themselves are not heard for over a decade, the routine denial of bail, as seen in Chatra Pal's case, can lead to convicts serving out their entire sentence, or a substantial part of it, before their appeal is even considered on merits. This subverts the very purpose of the provision.

• Judicial Accountability and Management: This case shines a spotlight on the administrative responsibilities of High Courts. The listing of cases is a core administrative function, and its failure has severe consequences for justice delivery. The Supreme Court's demand for a "working plan" is a call for systemic reform, pushing the High Court to move beyond ad-hoc measures and implement a robust, transparent, and efficient case management system.

The Allahabad High Court, being one of the largest in the country with a vast territorial jurisdiction, faces unique challenges. However, the sheer scale of the backlog points to a chronic problem that requires urgent and innovative solutions, possibly including the constitution of special benches, leveraging technology for case management, and a systematic audit of old pending cases.

As the legal community awaits the appearance of the Allahabad High Court Registrar on October 16, this case will be closely watched. The outcome will not only determine the fate of thousands of incarcerated individuals but also set a precedent for how the judiciary addresses its own internal challenges of delay and backlog, reaffirming its commitment to the foundational principle that justice delayed is justice denied.