HUSSAIN AND ANR. versus UNION OF LNDIA
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Ratio
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626 
HUSSAIN AND ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF lNDIA 
(Criminal Appeal No. 509 of2017) 
MARCH 09, 2017 
{ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.] 
Bail - Denial of bail pending trial/appeal where accused/ 
convict in custody for long period - Two set of cases - In first case, 
appellants were in custody on allegation of an offence u/s.21 (c) of 
the NDPS Act and in second case, appellant was in custody as 
convicted u/s.302, !PC and appeal was pending in High Court -
Plea of appellants that they were entitled to bail as speedy trial is 
their fundamental right u!Art. 21 - Held: It is settled in various 
decisions of the Supreme Court that if appeal is not heard for 5 
years, excluding the delay for which accused himself is responsible, 
bail should normally be granted - However, the second case is not 
covered by such decisions as appeal pending in High Court not 
completed 5 years - Further, it is settled that if there is violation of 
right of speedy trial, instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher 
court can direct conclusion of proceedings in fixed time - In light 
of these principles, direction issued to dispose of the pending trial 
in the first case and appeal in the second case within six months -
Constitution of India - Art. 21 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic 
Substances Act, 1985 - s.2J(c) - Penal Code - s.302 - Under trial 
Prisoners. 
Supreme Court - Directions - Delay in trials - Speedy trial 
is a part of reasonable fair and
just procedure guaranteed ul Art. 21 
- Inspite of earlier directions of Supreme Court, further 
consideration has become necessary in the interest of administration 
of justice - Held: High Court to issue directions to subordinate 
courts that - (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within 
one week - (b) Where accused are in custody, Magisterial trials be 
norlnally concluded within six months and·sessions trials within two 
years - (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five 
year old by the end of the year - (d) As supplement to s.436A, 
Cr.P.C, if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess 
626
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such 
under trial must be released on personal bond - Constitution of 
India -Art. 21 - Code ofCrimina!Procedure. 1973 - s.436A -
Administration of justice. 
Supreme Court - Directions to High Court - Timely delivery 
of justice - Speeding up disposal of cases - Held: High Courts to 
ensure that bail applications are decided as far as possible within 
one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for 
more than five years are concluded at earliest - Further, High Courts 
to prepare, issue and monitor appropriate actioi1 plans for the 
subordinate courts and monitor steps for speedy investigation and 
trial on administrative and judicial side jiwn time to time. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: l. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, 
reference has been made to decisions of Supreme Court in case 
627 
A 
B 
c 
of Akftt(lri Bi (Smt.) v. Sf(lfe of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias 
D 
Shingara Singh v. Sf(lfe of Punjab* which provides that if the appeal 
is not heard for 5 years, excluding the delay for which the accused 
himself is responsible, bail should normally be granted. The 
second case is not covered by the said judgment as the pending 
appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013. [Para 6) [632-C-D) 
*Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of MP (2001) 4 SCC 355 : 
[2001) 2 SCR 626; Surinder Singh alias Shingara 
Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387
: [2005) 
2 Suppl. SCR 1172 - referred to. 
1.2 In another Supreme Court decision iu case of Abdul 
Rehm(ln Antufoy and ors. v. R.S. Nayak am/ tmr. ** while holding 
that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under Article 21, it 
was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, instead 
of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion 
of proceedings in a fixed time. In the light of these principles, 
the present appeals can be disposed of by directing that the 
pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second case 
may be disposed of within six months. [Para 7) [632-E-F] 
**Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and 
anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225 : [1991) 3 Suppl. SCR 325 -
relied on. 
E 
F 
G 
H
628 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017) 2 S.C.R. 
2.1 However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite 
of earlier directions of this Court, further consideration has 
become necessary in the interest of administration of justice and 
for enforcement of fundamental right under Article 21. [Para 8) 
[632-P-GJ 
2.2 It necessary to direct that steps be taken forthwith by 
all concerned to effectuate the mandate of the fundamental right 
under Article 21 especially with regard to persons in custody in 
view of the directions already issued by Supreme Court. It is 
desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing 
a tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal 
trials of persons in custody and other loug pending cases and 
monitors implementation of such timelines periodically. This may 
perhaps obviate the need for seeking directions in individual 
cases from this Court. It is desirable for Chief Justices of all the 
High Courts to take other steps consistent with the directions 
already issued by this Court for expeditions disposal of criminal 
appeals pending in High Courts where persons are in custody by 
fixing priority having regard to the time period of detention. 
Purther, the directions for setting up of adequate number of 
forensic laboratories at all levels are reiterated. Specification of 
some of these issues is in addition to implementation of other 
steps including timely investigation, timely
serving of summons 
on witnesses and accused, timely filing of charge-sheets and 
furnishing of copies of charge-sheets to the accused. These 
aspects need constant monitoring by High Courts. [Para 241 [641-
G-H; 642-A-CJ 
2.3 Judicial service as well as legal service are not like 
any other services. They are missions for serving the society. 
The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the 
queue does not get his turn for a long time. Chief Justices and 
Chief Ministers have resolved that all cases must be disposed of 
within five years which by any standard is quite a long time for a 
case to be decided in the first court. Decision of cases of 
undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There arc 
obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial 
- vested interests or unscrupulous clements try to delay the 
proceedings. Lack of infrastructure is another handicap. lnspite 
of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by 
constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding Officer of a court 
cannot rest in the state of helplessness. This is the constitutional 
responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and 
of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts 
to ensure timely disposal of cases. The first step in this direction 
is preparation of an appropriate action plan at the level of the 
High Court and thereafter at the level of each and every individual 
judicial officer. Implementation of the action pfan will require 
serious efforts and constant monitoring. [Para 26) [642-G-H; 643-
A-C) 
2.4 To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions 
to subordinate courts that - (a) Bail applications be disposed of 
normally within one week; (b) Magisterial trials, where accused 
are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and 
sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally 
concluded within two years; (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all 
cases which are five years old by the end of the year; (d) As a 
supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, 
if an undertrial has completed period of custody in excess of the 
sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such 
undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment 
must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; 
(e) The above
timelines may be the touchstone for assessment 
of judicial performance in annual confidential reports; (ii) The 
High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications ,filed 
before them are decided as far as possible within one month and 
criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five 
years are concluded at the earliest; (iii) The High Courts may 
prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the 
subordinate courts; (iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for 
speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side 
from time to time; (v) The High Courts may take such stringent 
measures as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of 
this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal. [Para 27] [643-C-H; 
644-A) 
Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV} v. Home Secretary, 
State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98 : [1979) 3 SCR 
629 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
532; Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home 
H
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Secretary. Bihar and ors. etc. (1995) 5 SCC 326; 
Supreme Court Legal Aid Cammi/tee representing 
undertrial prisoners v. Union of India and ors. (1994) 
6 SCC 731 : [1994] 4 Suppl. SCR 386; Noor 
Mohammed v. Jethanand and anr.; (2013) 5 SCC 202 : 
B 
[2013) 3 SCR 1146; Thana Singh v. Central Bureau 
of Narcotics88 (2013) 2 SCC 590 : [2013] 2 SCR 
899; lmtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. 
(2012) 2 sec 688 : 120121 1 SCR 779; Anita 
Kushwaha etc. etc. v. Pushap Sudan etc. etc. (2016) 8 
SCC 509; Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13 
c 
SCC 603; Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015) 13 
SCC 605; Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons 
(2016) 3 SCC 700 : (2016] 1 SCR 1090; Ex. Captain 
Harish Uppal v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45: 
(2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 186 - referred to. 
D 
Case Law Reference 
(2001] 2 SCR 626 
referred to 
Para6 
(2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 1172 
referred to 
Para6 
(1991] 3 Suppl. SCR 325 
relied on 
Para 7 
E 
(1979) 3 SCR 532 
referred to 
Para9 
(1995) 5 sec 326 
referred to 
Para 10 
(1994) 4 Suppl. SCR 386 
referred to 
Para 11 
F 
(2013) 3 SCR 1146 
referred to 
Para 12 
[2013] 2 SCR 899 
referred to 
Para 13 
[2012] 1 SCR 779 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2016) 8 sec 509 
referred to 
Para 15 
G 
(2015) 13 sec 603 
referred to 
Para 16 
(2015) 13 sec 605 
referred to 
Para 16 
(2016] 1 SCR 1090 
referred to 
Para 16 
H 
[2002) 5 Suppl. SCR 186 
referred to 
Para 25
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 
631 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
A 
No. 509 of2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2015 of the High 
Court of Calcutta in C.R.M. No. I 0595 of 2014 
WITH 
Crl. A. No. 511 of2017. 
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. (A.C.), Sameer Chaudhary, Gautam 
Khazanchi,Anupam Prasad, Ali Chaudhmy, Mohd. Adee! Siddiqui, Mohd. 
Irshad Hanif, Bipin Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants. 
B 
Atmaram N. S. Nand Karni, ASG., S.S. Rebello, Jai D., Vibhu 
C 
Shanker Mishra, R. K. Rathore, Umesh Babu Chaurasia, Ray Bahadur, 
M. K. Maroria, Ajit Yadav, Vijay Prakash, Kazi Safiullah, Rauf Rahim, 
Rohit K. Singh, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 
! 
1. Leave granted. Grievance in these appeals is against denial of 
bail pending trial/appeal where appellants have been in custody for a 
long period. 
th 
2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody since 
4 August, 2013 on the allegation of having committed offence under 
Section 21 ( c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985 (the NDPS Act). Their bail application, pending trial, has been 
dismissed. In the second case, the appellant is in custody since 11th 
January, 2009. He has been convicted by the trial court under Section 
302 !PC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His bail application 
has been dismissed by the High Court pending appeal. The appellants 
contend that, having regard to
the long period of custody, they are entitled 
to bail as speedy trial is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the 
Constitution. 
3. To consider the question as to the circumstances in which bail 
can be granted on the ground of delayed proceedings when a person is 
in custody, notice was also issued to learned Attorney General and Mr. 
Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate was appointed Amicus Curiae. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
632 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, the learned 
amicus and the learned Additional Solicitor General. 
5. During the hearing reference has been made to the decisions 
of this Court dealing with the issue and reference has also been made to 
Section 436A Cr.P.C. which provides for grant of bail when a person 
has undergone detention upto one half of maximum prescribed 
imprisonment. It was submitted that the said provision applies only during 
trial and the first case is not covered by the said provision as the appellant 
therein has not undergone the requisite detention period to claim bail 
under the said provision. 
6. With regard to grant of bail, pending appeal, reference has 
been made to decisions of this Court in Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. Stale of 
M.R 1 and Surim/er Sin1:h alias Shin1:ara Sin1:h v. State of Punjllh' 
which provides that ifthe appeal is not heard for 5 years, excluding the 
delay for which the accused himself is responsible, bail should normally 
be granted. The second case is not covered by the said judgment as the 
pending appeal in the High Court is of the year 2013. 
7. In Abi/11/ Rehman Anlulay mu/ ors. v. R.S. Nayak and 
anr.' while holding that speedy trial at all stages is part of right under 
Article 21, it was held that if there is violation of right of speedy trial, 
instead of quashing the proceedings, a higher court can direct conclusion 
of proceedings in a
fixed time. In the light of these principles, the present 
appeals can be disposed of by directing that the pending trial in the first 
case and the appeal in the second case may be disposed of within six 
months. We order accordingly and dispose of the matters to the extent 
of grievance in the two cases. 
II 
8. However, since the issue is arising frequently, inspite of earlier 
directions of this Court, further consideration has become necessary in 
the interest of administration of justice and for enforcement of 
fundamental right under Article 21 . 
9. As already noticed, speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair 
and just procedure guaranteed under Article 2 I. This constitutional right 
cannot be denied even on the plea ofnon-availability of financial resources. 
'(2001) 4 sec 355 
'(2005) 1 sec 387 
3(1992) I SCC225~Para86
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen 
investigating machinery, setting-up of new courts, building new court 
houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment 
of additional judges and other measures as are necessary for speedy 
trial'. 
10. Directions given by this Court in lluss(lill(lrfl Klwloon (supra) 
to this effect were left to be implemented by the High Courts' are as 
follows: 
"2. Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines by 
orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in 
subsequent orders passed in different cases since then, we 
do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines 
periodically because tile enforcement of tile guidelines by 
the subordinate courts funclio11i11g in different States should 
now be the responsibility of tile different High Courts to which 
they are subordinate. General orders for release of 
under/rials without reference to spec(fic fact-situations in 
different cases may prove to be hazardous. While there can 
be no doubt that under/rial prisoners should not languish 
in jails on account of refusal to enlarge them on bail for 
want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary 
obligations, these are matters which have to be dealt with 
on case-to-case basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid 
down by this Court in the orders passed in this writ petition 
and in subsequent cases from time
to time. Sympathy for the 
undertrials who are in jail for long terms on account of the 
pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard to the 
impact of crime, more particular(v, serious crime, on society 
and these considerations have to be weighed having regard 
to the fact-situations in pending cases. While there can be 
no doubt that trials of those accused of crimes should be 
disposed of as early as possible, general orders in regard to 
iudge strength of subordinate judiciary in each State must 
be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High 
Court of the State concerned. We share the ~ympathetic 
'Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State ofBihar. Patna- ( 1980) I 
sec 98 - para 10. 
'Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Horne Secretary. Bihar and ors. etc. -{ 1995) 
633 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
s sec 326 - para 2 
H
634 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 
concern of the learned counsel for the petitioners that 
undertria/s should not languish in jails for long spells merely 
on account of their inability to meet monetary obligations. 
We are, however, of the view that such monitoring can be 
done more effectively by the High Courts since it would be 
easy for that Court to collect and collate the statistical 
information in that behalf, apply the broad guidelines already 
issued and deal with the situation as ii emerges from the 
starus reports presented lo it. The role of the High Court is 
to ensure that the guidelines issued by this Court are 
implemented in letter and spirit. We think it would Sl![fice if 
we request lite Chief Justices oftlte High Courts to undertake 
a review of suclt cases in tlteir States and give appropriate 
directions wltere needed to ensure proper and effective 
implementation of the guidelines. Instead of repeating lite 
general directions already issued, it would be sufficient to 
remind the Higlt Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of 
cases . ... " 
(emphasis added) 
1 I. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial 
is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for 
some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending 
trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. This Court has held that while a 
person in custody for a grave offence may not be released if trial is 
delayed,
trial has to be expedited or bail has to be granted in such cases'. 
12. Timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights. Denial of 
speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of 
justice. Directions of this Court in Noor Moltammed v. Jetluuumd 
and anr. 7 are as follows: 
" 34 . ......... Therefore, we request the learned Chief Justice 
of the High Court of Rajas than as well as the other learned 
Chief Justices to conceive and adopt a mechanism, regard 
being had lo the priority of cases. to avoid such inordinate 
delays in matters which can really be dealt with in an 
(, Supn:1nc Court Legal Aid Con1111iltee representing undertrial prisoners v. Union of 
India and ors. - ( 1994) 6 SCC 731 - para 15 
'(2013)5 sec 202
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) 
expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards 
the destination. A sensible individual inspiration and a 
committed collective endeavour would indubitably help in 
this regard. Neither less, nor more. " 
13. In TlwnaSing!t v. Central Bureau of Narcotics' this Court 
directed that liberal adjou,rnments must be avoided and witnesses once 
produced must be examined on consecutive dates. Directions were also 
issued for setting up of sut1icient laboratories, for disposal of seized 
narcotics drugs and for providing charge-sheets and other documents in 
electronic form in addition to hard copies of same to avoid delay. 
14. In Akhlari Bi (supra) this Court observed as under: 
"5 . ...... ... it is incumbent upon the High Courts to find ways 
and means by taking steps to ensure the disposal of criminal 
appeals, particularly such appeals where the accused are 
in jails, that the matters are disposed of within the specified 
period not exceeding 5 years in any case. Regular Benches 
to deal with the criminal cases can be set up where such 
appeals be listed for final disposal. We feel that if an appeal 
is not disposed of within the aforesaid period of 5 years, for 
no fault of the convicts. such convicts may be released on 
bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by 
the court. In computing the period of 5 years, the delay for 
any period, which is requisite in preparation of the record 
and
the delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can 
be deducted. There may be cases where even after the lapse 
of 5 y~ars the convicts may, wider the special circumstances 
of the case, be held not entitled to bail pending the disposal 
of the appeals filed by them. We request the Chief Justices 
of the High Courts, where tile criminal cases are pending 
for more than 5 years to take immediate effective steps for 
their disposal by constituting regular and special Benches 
for that purpose." 
15. Again in lmtiyaz Almuul v, Stale of Ul/ar Pr(l(/es/1 and 
Ors.' it was observed that long delay has the effect of blatant violation 
of rule of law and adverse impact on access to justice which is a 
"(2013) 2 sec 590 
'(20l2J 2 sec 688 
635 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
636 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
fundamental right. Denial of this right undermines public confidence in 
justice delivery. These observations have been reiterated in recent 
Constitution Bench judgment in Anita Kusllwalw etc. etc. v. Puslwp 
Sudan etc. etc.'°. In the said judgment it was noticed that providing 
effective adjudicatory mechanism, reasonably accessible and speedy, 
was part of access to justice. 
16. In B/lim Sill1tfl V. Union of Jntlill 11 , it was observed that 
central government must take steps in consultation with the state 
governments in fast tracking all types of criminal cases so that criminal 
justice is delivered timely and expeditiously. In the same case, in a further 
order" it was noted that more than 50% of the prisoners in various jails 
are undertrial prisoners. In spite of incorporation of Section 436A in 
Cr.PC. undertrial prisoners continue to remain in prisons in violation of 
the mandate of the said section. Accordingly, this court directed 
jurisdictional Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Session judge to hold 
one sitting in a week in each jail/prison for 2 months for effective 
implementation of Section 436A. Again in Re: !11/mnwn Conditions in 
1382 Prisons" reference was made to the advisory issued by Ministry 
of Home Affairs to all States for implementation of Section 436A, Cr.PC. 
stipulating constitution of a review committee in every district under the 
chairmanship of the District Judge. It was
noted that 67% of the prisoners 
in the jails were undertrials prisoners. 
III 
17. In lmtiyuz Ahmad (supra) this Court noted that serious 
cases involving murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoiting were pending for 
long period. In some cases proceedings are delayed on account of stay 
F 
orders. Out of the said cases, in 9 per cent cases stay was operating for 
more than 20 years, in 21 per cent stay was operating for more than 10 
years. Having regard to the situation noticed in the judgment, this Court 
directed the High Courts to dispose ofcases in which proceedings were 
stayed preferably within six months from the date of stay orders. The 
Law Con1mission was directed to make reco1nmendation for 1neasures 
G 
to be.adopted by way of creation of additional courts and the I ik9" matters. 
The Law Commission made its recommendations in its 245 Report 
"'(2016) 8 sec 509-PARA(S) 31-36 
"(2015) 13 SCC603 
"(2015) 13 sec 605 
H 
12 (2016)3SCC700
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
which was examined by the National Court Management Systems 
Committee (NCMSC) to detem1ine additional number of courts required. 
The said report was thereafter considered by this Court in judgment 
"' 
dated 2 January, 2017 in lmtiy11z Almuul v. St11te of U.P. & Ors. 
[Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 of2012]. After noticing the stand of the 
Ministry of Law and Justice on the subject of creation of additional 
'" 
posts, this Court also noted the recommendations of the 14 Finance 
Commission whereby additional fiscal allocation was provided. In that 
context, the Prime Minister's letter to the Chief Ministers calling upon 
them to allocate funds in the State Budgets was also referred to. Fu1iher 
follow up letter of the Law Minister and Resolution of Chief Justices' 
Conference held in April, 2016 were also referred to. Thereafter, this 
Court issued directions for computing the required judge strength of the 
district judiciary and also directed the State Governments to take steps 
for enhancing the judge strength accordingly. The directions are as 
follows: 
"22. Having regard to the above background, we now 
proceed lo formulate our directions in the fo!loll'ing terms : 
i) Until NCMSC formulates a scientific method for 
determining the basis for computing the required judge 
strength of the district judiciary, the judge strength shall be 
computed for each 'state. in accordance with the interim 
approach
indicated in the note submitted by the Chairperson, 
NC MSC; 
ii) NCMSC is requested to endeavour the submission of its 
fhwl report by 31 December 2017; 
iii) A copy of the interim report submitted by the Chairperson, 
NCMSC shall be forwarded by the Union Ministry of Law 
and Justice to the Chief Justices of all the High Courts and 
Chief Secretaries of all states within one month so as to 
enable them to take follow-up action to determine the required 
iudge strength of the district judiciary based 011 the NCMSC 
interim report, subject to what has been stated in this 
iudgment; 
iv) The state governments shall take up with the High Courts 
concerned the task of implementing the interim report of the 
Chairperson. NCMSC (subject to what has been observed 
637 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
above) and take necessary decisions within a period of three 
months from today for enhancing the required judge strength 
of each state judiciary accordingly; 
v) The state governments shall cooperate in all respects with 
the High Courts in terms of the resolutions passed in the 
B 
ioint conference of Chief Justices and Chief Ministers in 
April 2016 with a view to ensuri11g expeditious disbursal of 
funds to the state judiciaries in terms of the devolution made 
under the auspices of the Fourteenth Fi11a11ce Commission; 
vi) The High Courts shall take up the issue of creating 
C 
additional infrastructure required for meeting the existing 
sanctioned strength of their state judiciaries and the 
enhanced strength in terms of the interim recommendation 
ofNCMSC; 
vii) The final report submitted by NCMSC may be placed for 
D 
consideration before the Conference of Chief Justices. The 
directions in (i) above shall then be subject to the ultimate 
decision that is taken on receipt of the final report; and 
viii) A copy of this order shall be made available to the 
Registrars General of each High Court and to all Chief 
E 
Secretaries of the States for appropriate action. " 
The said matternow stands adjourned to July, 2017. 
18. During Joint Conference of Chief Ministers of States and 
Chief Justices of High Courts held in April, 2015, a decision was taken 
that all High Courts will establish Arrears Committees and prepare a 
F
plan to clear backlog of cases pending for more than 5 years. Such 
Committees have reportedly been established. In Chief Justices' 
Conference held in April, 2016 under Item No. 8 illler alia the following 
resolution was passed: 
G 
H 
" {8/ DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE: 
xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
Resolved that 
(i) all High Courts shall assign top most priority for disposal 
of cases which are pendi11g for more tha11 jive years; 
(ii) High Courts where arrears of cases pending for more
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
639 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
than five years are concentrated shall facilitate their disposal 
A 
in niission 1node; 
(iii) High Courts shall progressively thereafter set a target 
of disposing of cases pending for more than four years; 
(iv) while prioritizing the. disposal of cases pending in the 
district courts for more than five years, additional incentives 
for the Judges of the district judiciary be considered where 
feasible; and 
(v) efforts be made for strengthening case-flow management 
rules. " 
19. The position of five yearoid cases continues to be alarming 
in many States. Total number of more than five year old cases in 
subordinate courts at the end of the year 2015 is said to be 43, 19,693 as 
"' 
noted in para 9 of the judgment of this Court dated 2 January, 2017 in 
lmtiyazA/tmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 
of2012]. Number ofundertrials detained for more than five years at the 
end of the year 2015 is said to be 3599. 1" Numberofappeals pending in 
High Courts where detention period is beyond five years may be still 
higher. 
20. It appears that annual action plans have been prepared by 
some High Courts with reference to the subject of discussion in the 
Chief Justices' Conference. Reference to action plan of the Punjab and 
Haryana High Court for the year 2011-2012 15 shows that undertrials 
" 
who were in custody for more than two years as on 1 April, 2011 in 
Session Trial cases and those
in custody for more than six months in 
Magisterial Trial cases were targeted for disposal, apart from five year 
old cases and other priority cases. Similar targets were fixed for 
subsequent years and result reflected in the pendency figures shows 
improvement in disposal of five year old cases and cases ofundertrials 
in custody beyond two years in Session Trial cases and six months in 
Magisterial Trial cases in subordinate courts in the jurisdiction of Punjab 
& Haryana High Court. 16 Reportedly, success is on account of monitoring 
14 Prison Statistics lndia-2015 
1' Circular dated 2.4.2011 from Registrar Rules, Punjab and Haryana High Court. As 
per resolution of Full Court meeting dated 29.3.2011, the plan was to be monitored 
every three months and perfonnance of judicial officers was to be reflected in AC Rs. 
16 Report of the monitoring Committee is that targets wer~ achieved to the extent of 
90%. 98110 old cases were disposed of out of 117880 targeted. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
640 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
inter alia by holding quarterly meetings of District Judges with Senior 
High Court Judges as well as constant monitoring by concerned 
Administrative Judges"- Presumably, there is similar improvement as a 
result of planned efforts elsewhere. In view of successful implementation 
of plan to dispose of cases of undertrials in custody in two years in 
Session Trial cases and six months in Magisterial trials, we do not see 
any reason why this target should not be set unifonnly. The same need 
to be regularly monitored and reflected in performance appraisals of 
concerned judicial officers. Handicaps pointed out can be tackled at 
appropriate level. Accordingly, we are of the view that plan of each 
High Court should include achieving the said target and not the target of 
five years for undertrials in custody. Of course, if such cases can be 
disposed of earlier, it may be still better. Plans can be revised as per 
local conditions. We also feel delay in disposal of bail applications and 
cases where trials are stayed are priority areas for monitoring. Time line 
for disposal of bail applications ought to be fixed by the High Court. As 
far as possible, bail applications in subordinate courts should ordinarily 
be decided within one week and in High Courts within two-three weeks. 
Posting of suitable officers in key leadership positions of Session Judges 
and Chief Judicial Magistrates may perhaps go a long way
in dealing 
with the situation. Non performers/dead wood must be weeded out as 
per rules, as public interest is above individual interest. 
21. Another suggestion which cropped up during the hearing of 
the present case relates to remedying the situation of delay in trials on 
account of absconding of one or the other accused during the trial. In 
this regard our attention has been drawn to an amendment in the Code 
of Criminal Procedure. 1898 of Bangladesh by way of adding Section 
3398 to the following effect: 
"Trial i11 ah.~e11tia 
[339B. (}) Where after the compliance with the requirements 
of section 87 and section 88, the Court has reason to believe 
that an accused person has absconded or concealing himself 
so 1hat he cannot be arrested and produced for trial and 
there is no immediate prospect of arresting him, the Court 
taking cognizance of the offence complained of shall, by 
order published in at least two national daily Bengali 
Newspapers having wide circulation], 
17 Sec the inforrnation on \vebsitc of Punjab and l~aryana High Court under the caption 
H 
.. Action Plans"
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
direct such person to appear before it within such period as 
may be specified in the order, llllll if suclt person fails to 
comply witlt suclt direction, lte sltal/ be tried in !tis absence. 
(2) Where in a case after the production or appearance of 
an accused before the Court or his release on bail, the 
accused person absconds or fails to appear, the procedure 
as laid down in sub-section (1) shall not apply and the Court 
competent to try such person for the offence complained of 
shall, recording its decision so to do, try such person in his 
absence. " 
641 
A 
B 
(emphasis added) 
C 
22. It is for the concerned authority to take cognizance of the 
above amendment which may considerably reduce delay in cases where 
one or the other accused absconds during the trial. 
23. Learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned Additional Solicitor 
General have suggested that monitoring by all High Courts is necessary 
to ensure minimizing adjournments at all levels, taking steps to remove 
obstacles in speedy trials including setting up of adequate number of 
laboratories, use of Video Conferencing to examine scientific experts or 
otherwise, appointment of public prosecutors, compliance of Section 207/ 
208 Cr.P.C. by scanning/digitizing police reports, introduce system for 
electronic service of summons (wherever necessary), issuing timelines 
for disposal of bail matters at all levels. It has also been suggested that
suitable amendments ought to be made in the Code of Criminal Procedure 
for permitting tendering evidence of medical witnesses on the pattern of 
Section 293 Cr.P.C. While we have discussed some of the issues germane 
to the subject of speedy trials, in view of directions already issued by this 
Court, issuance of further directions and monitoring of directions already 
issued is left to the concerned High Courts. 
24. In view of the above, we do consider it necessary to direct 
that steps be taken forthwith by all concerned to effectuate the mandate 
of the fundamental right under Article 21 especially with regard to persons 
in custody in view of the directions already issued by this Court. It is 
desirable that each High Court frames its annual action plan fixing a 
tentative time limit for subordinate courts for deciding criminal trials of 
persons in custody and other long pending cases and monitors 
implementation of such timelines periodically. This may perhaps obviate 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
•
642 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 2 S.C.R. 
the need for seeking directions in individual cases from this Court. We 
also feel that it is desirable for Chief Justices of all the High Courts to 
take other steps consistent with the directions already issued by this 
Court for expeditious disposal of criminal appeals pending in High Courts 
where persons are in custody by fixing priority having regard to the time 
period of detention. We also reiterate the directions for setting up of 
adequate number of forensic laboratories at all levels. Specification of 
some of these issues is in addition to implementation of other steps including 
timely investigation, timely serving of summons on witnesses and accused, 
timely filing of charge-sheets and furnishing of copies of charge-sheets 
to the accused. These aspects need constant monitoring by High Courts. 
25. One other aspect pointed out is the obstruction of Court 
proceedings by uncalled for strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers or 
frequent suspension of court work after condolence references. In view 
of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harisli Upp<tl versas Union 
·of India", such suspension of work or strikes are clearly illegal and it 
is high time that the legal fraternity realizes its duty to the society which 
is the foremost. Condolence references can be once in while periodically 
say once in two/three months and not frequently. Hardship faced by 
witnesses iftheir evidence is not
recorded on the day they are summoned 
or impact of delay on undertrials in custody on account of such avoidable 
interruptions of court proceedings is a matter of concern for any 
responsible body of professionals and they must take appropriate steps. 
In any case, this needs attention of all concerned authorities -the Central 
Government/State Governments/Bar Councils/Bar Associations as well 
as the High Courts and ways and means ought to be found out to tackle 
this menace. Consistent with the above judgment, the High Courts must 
monitor this aspect strictly and take stringent measures as may be 
required in the interests of administration of justice. 
26. Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other 
services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not 
achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn 
for a long time. Chief Justices and Chief Ministers have resolved that 
all cases must be disposed of within five years which by any standard is 
quite a long time for a case to be decided in the first court. Decision of 
cases of undertrials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are 
obstructions at every level in enforcement ofright of speedy trial -vested 
"(2003) 2 sec 45
HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 
[ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] 
interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of 
infrastructure is another handicap. Inspite of all odds~ determined efforts 
are required at every level for success of the mission. Ways and means 
have to be found out by constant thinking and monitoring. Presiding 
Officer of a court cannot rest in the state of helplessness. This is the 
constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure 
and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts 
to ensure timely disposal of cases. The first step in this direction is 
preparation ofan appropriate action plan at the level of the High Court 
and thereafter at the level of each and every individual judicial officer. 
Implementation of the action plan will require serious efforts and constant 
monitoring. 
27. To sum up: 
(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts 
that -
643 
A 
B 
c 
(a) Bail applications be disposed ofnormally within one week; 
D 
(b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally 
concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in 
custody be normally concluded with in two years; 
(c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years 
old by the end of the year; 
(d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the 
spirit thereof, ifan undertrial has completed period ofcustody in excess 
of the sentence likely
to be awarded if conviction is recorded such 
undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must 
be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time; 
(e) The above timelines may be the touchstone· for assessment 
ofjudicial performance in annual confidential reports. 
(emphasis added) 
E 
F 
(ii) The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications 
G 
filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and 
criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years 
are concluded at the earliest; 
(iii) The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate 
action plans for the subordinate courts; 
H
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(iv) The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation 
B 
c 
D 
E 
and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time; 
(v) The High Courts may take such stringent measures as may 
be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain 
Harish Uppal (supra) . 
28.Accordingly, we request the Chief Justices ofall High Courts 
to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with the directions of this 
Court in Hussain Ara Klwtoon (1995) 5 SCC 326) (supra), Akhtari 
Bi (Smt.) (supra), Noor Moftammed (supra), TIIana Singft (supra), 
S.C. Legal Aid Committee (supra), lmtiaz Ahmad (supra), Ex. 
Captain HarislI Uppal (supra) and Resolution of Chief Justices' 
Conference and observations hereinabove and to have appropriate 
monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side as well as on 
the judicial side for speeding up disposal ofcases ofundertrials pending 
in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts. 
We place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance 
rendered by Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor 
General and Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Advocate. 
A copy of th is order be sent to all the courts. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeals disposed of.