Supreme Court Mandates Revival of Day-to-Day Trials to Combat Systemic Delays

In a landmark judgment aimed at tackling the endemic issue of judicial backlogs, the Supreme Court has issued sweeping directives to revive the practice of day-to-day criminal trials, lamenting that a tradition vital for speedy justice has been “given a complete go-by” over the last three decades.

New Delhi: A Supreme Court bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan has initiated a significant judicial reform, directing all High Courts to form committees and issue circulars to their district judiciaries to reinstate the practice of continuous, day-to-day trial hearings. The Court’s comprehensive judgment, delivered in The Central Bureau of Investigation v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali , underscores that fragmented, piecemeal trials are a primary contributor to delays that undermine the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.

While the Court declined to cancel the bail of the respondent in a rape case linked to the 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence, it used the opportunity to address what it termed a "common practice and regular occurrence" of trial courts flouting the statutory mandate of Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). This provision explicitly requires that once witness examination begins, it must continue daily until all attending witnesses are examined.

The bench expressed its deep concern, stating, “The practice of conducting trials on a day-to-day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about thirty years ago has been given a complete go-by. We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice.”

The Case That Triggered a Systemic Overhaul

The Court's far-reaching observations were prompted by a CBI plea to cancel the bail granted to Mir Usman. The agency, represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Archana Pathak Dave, argued that protracted adjournments posed a significant risk of witness tampering, especially after the victim had already taken the stand. The trial court had adjourned the victim’s further examination for nearly four months, a delay the Supreme Court warned could “unwittingly facilitate the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses.”

The trial judge, in a status report, attributed the long adjournment to the victim's sudden illness in the witness box, a staggering backlog of over 4,700 cases, the need to prioritize older custody matters, and a month-long court closure for the Durga Puja festival.

While acknowledging the immense pressure on trial courts, the Supreme Court found the systemic acceptance of such delays unacceptable. The bench observed, “While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far outweigh the perceived benefits.”

Refusing to cancel the bail since the accused had been out of custody for nearly a year without any reported violations, the Court instead focused on ensuring the trial’s expeditious conclusion. It preponed the victim's examination and set a firm deadline of December 31, 2025, for the trial's completion.

A Blueprint for Trial Court Discipline

The judgment goes beyond the specifics of the case to prescribe a detailed, seven-point framework for implementation by all High Courts. This framework aims to enforce the discipline envisioned by Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and curb the pervasive culture of adjournments. The key directives include:

1. Mandatory Day-to-Day Hearings: Once witness examination commences, it must proceed daily until all present witnesses are examined. Any deviation requires special reasons to be recorded in writing.
2. No Adjournments for Counsel's Convenience: The Court explicitly stated that an advocate’s scheduling inconvenience is not a "special reason" to grant an adjournment. Exceptions are limited to "very exceptional grounds" like a bereavement in the family, which must be formally documented.
3. Consequences for Non-Cooperation: The judgment outlines strict measures to handle deliberate delaying tactics by the accused or their counsel.
   • If counsel’s non-cooperation is found to be in collusion with the accused, the court can issue a show-cause notice for bail cancellation.
   • If the lawyer is uncooperative but the accused is not, the court may appoint an amicus curiae to ensure the trial proceeds.
   • Courts are empowered to impose costs on the accused to compensate witnesses for their expenses and time lost.
   • If an accused is absent when a witness is present, the court can cancel their bail.
4. Proactive Scheduling: Presiding officers are encouraged to create advance schedules for witness examination in consultation with counsel from both sides.
5. Efficient Service of Summons: To streamline the process, the Court suggested that summons could be handed directly to the Public Prosecutor for service on witnesses, ensuring their presence as per the schedule.

Reaffirming Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right

The bench heavily relied on established constitutional jurisprudence, reiterating that a speedy trial is an integral component of the right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court lamented the current practice where a witness's examination-in-chief is recorded in one month and cross-examination is deferred to a much later date, a practice it unequivocally disapproved of.

"We are at pains to note that it is almost a common practice and regular occurrence that the trial courts flout the said mandate with impunity," the bench observed, highlighting the legislature's intent to frown upon adjournments on flimsy grounds.

Furthermore, the Court addressed the role of the prosecution in contributing to delays by citing an excessive number of witnesses. In the instant case, the prosecution initially intended to examine 60 witnesses, later reducing the number to 30. The Court questioned this approach, remarking, “We fail to understand why the Public Prosecutor wants to examine 30 witnesses in a trial for the offence of rape... It is the quality of the evidence that is important and not the quantity.” The judgment places a duty on the trial judge to actively question the necessity of each witness proposed by the Public Prosecutor to prevent the trial from being unnecessarily prolonged.

Implications for the Bar and Bench

This judgment serves as a clarion call for an institutional overhaul of trial management across the country. For trial judges, it signals a shift from discretionary adjournments to a stricter, more disciplined approach, with a mandate to actively manage their dockets and enforce trial continuity. For legal practitioners, it marks the end of adjournments for mere convenience and demands greater preparedness and cooperation.

By directing that a copy of its order be sent to the Chief Justices of all High Courts, the Supreme Court has ensured that its directives are not confined to a single case but are intended to trigger a nationwide reform. The constitution of committees within each High Court will be the first step in translating these judicial pronouncements into on-the-ground procedural changes, aiming to restore faith in a justice system often criticized for its glacial pace.