Back
issues 10 directions to speed up and trials across India
A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih on , issued a comprehensive set of 10 directions aimed at reducing delays in the trial of and cases under (corresponding ). The order came during of its judgment in , which had highlighted the pernicious practice of dowry and systemic failures in enforcement.
Background of the case
The original case involved the death of a 20-year-old woman who had been married for just over a year. She was allegedly subjected to demands for a colour television, a motorcycle, and ₹15,000 in cash. The trial court convicted her husband Ajmal Beg and his mother Jamila Beg under Sections 304-B () and 498-A () IPC, but the overturned the convictions. The , in its judgment, restored the trial court’s verdict and noted that the case had taken 24 years to reach conclusion, pointing to widespread delays in similar matters. It had then called for measures to improve implementation of the , including strengthening , training judicial and police officers, and conducting awareness programmes.
Fresh directions on institutional support
After reviewing affidavits and data from High Courts, States, and Union Territories, the bench directed that States and Union Territories must ensure effective functioning of and strengthen , , , victim assistance mechanisms, helplines, and online grievance redressal systems. “This is to facilitate access to support and legal remedies for aggrieved women,” the order stated.
The Court also mandated sustained awareness and sensitization programmes on the social evil of dowry, gender equality, constitutional values, and women’s rights, to be integrated into educational curricula, community outreach, and legal literacy initiatives.
Time-bound progression of trials
A significant part of the order addresses trial delays. All courts dealing with these offences shall treat them as . District judiciary is to identify cases pending beyond three years, particularly those stuck at the stage of framing charges or recording evidence, and undertake periodic monitoring. Trial courts must endeavour to frame charges preferably within 60 to 90 days from filing of the charge-sheet and commence recording evidence within a reasonable period thereafter. Evidence should proceed on a in line with /. The timelines are , subject to exceptions like multiple accused, supplementary charge-sheets, or forensic delays.
Curbing adjournments and improving witness management
The Court directed that be discouraged, and any adjournment granted must be recorded in writing with reasons. If defence counsel repeatedly remains absent, a or may be appointed. Investigating Officers must nominate substitutes in advance to avoid delays due to transfer or retirement. Immediately after framing charges, trial courts shall prepare a with dates for examination of material witnesses and service of summons.
Technology integration and training
High Courts are to integrate , , for old cases, and case monitoring systems into existing court infrastructure. The Court also directed periodic training and sensitization for judicial officers, police officials, prosecutors, , and counsellors dealing with dowry-related offences. States may designate experienced prosecutors for these cases.
in appropriate cases and compliance reporting
In matrimonial disputes not involving death or grievous physical violence, courts may explore or where legally permissible. All High Courts and States/Union Territories must file on , , and each year until pendency is substantially reduced. The reports should include pendency and disposal statistics, stage-wise status, awareness initiatives, Dowry Prohibition Officer appointments, and training programmes conducted.
What happens next
The matters have been listed for further compliance-cum-periodic reports on . The Registry has been directed to communicate the order to all concerned forthwith.
