[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626 A 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, c 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 D 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 lightE 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.

F Supreme Court - Directions - Delay in trials - Speedy trial is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure guaranteed ulArt. 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 G 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 H 626 HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 627 of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such A 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 B 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 ctrial 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 of Akftt(lri Bi (Smt.) v. Sf(lfe of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias D Shingara Singh v. Sf(lfe ofPunjab* 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) E *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 FRehm(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 G 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. H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 2 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 c 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 criminalD 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 629 success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by A 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 Bis 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 c 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 D 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

(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 F 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 G 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 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 : [2013) 3 SCR 1146; Thana Singh v. Central Bureau B 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. Case Law ReferenceD (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 (2013) 3 SCR 1146 referred to Para 12 F [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 B 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.

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 D 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. E 2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody since th 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 F 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. G 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. H

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. A 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 B 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. c 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 D 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 E 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. F 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 . G 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 SCC225~Para86 H 3(1992) I HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 633 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen A 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) B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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) s sec 326 - para 2 H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. A 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 statisticalB 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 ofjustice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 635 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards A 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 ofNarcotics' this Court directed that liberal adjou,rnments must be avoided and witnesses once B 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: c "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 D 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 E 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 F 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." G

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 H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. A 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. B

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 c 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 D 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. E 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 Iik9" 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 637 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

which was examined by the National Court Management Systems A 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 8posts, 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 c 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 D 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 E 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, F 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 G 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 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: " {8/ DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE: G 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; H (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 B 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. " c 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 D 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 E 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 Fold 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 G 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. H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 c 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 D 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.

E 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: F "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 G 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 641 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] direct such person to appear before it within such period as A 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 B 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. " (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 D 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 Eelectronic 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 F 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 G 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 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 ofB 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. c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 643 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of A 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 Band 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. c

27. To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that - (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 E 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 Fbe 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) (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 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) . B 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' c 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 D 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. E Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.

[2017] 2 S.C.R. 626 A 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, c 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 D 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 lightE 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.

F Supreme Court - Directions - Delay in trials - Speedy trial is a part of reasonable fair and just procedure guaranteed ulArt. 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 G 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 H 626 HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 627 of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such A 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 B 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 ctrial 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 of Akftt(lri Bi (Smt.) v. Sf(lfe of M.P. and Surinder Singh alias D Shingara Singh v. Sf(lfe ofPunjab* 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) E *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 FRehm(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 G 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. H 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2017) 2 S.C.R. A 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 B 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 c 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 criminalD 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 629 success of the mission. Ways and means have to be found out by A 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 Bis 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 c 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 D 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

(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 F 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 G 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 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 : [2013) 3 SCR 1146; Thana Singh v. Central Bureau B 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. Case Law ReferenceD (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 (2013) 3 SCR 1146 referred to Para 12 F [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 B 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.

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 D 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. E 2. In the first case, the appellants have been in the custody since th 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 F 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. G 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. H

632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. A 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 B 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. c 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 D 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 E 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. F 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 . G 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 SCC225~Para86 H 3(1992) I HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF !NOIA 633 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] The court is entitled to issue directions to augment and strengthen A 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) B 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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) s sec 326 - para 2 H 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (20 I 7] 2 S.C.R. A 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 statisticalB 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 c 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 D 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 E 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 ofjustice is a part of human rights. Denial of speedy justice is a threat to public confidence in the administration of F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 635 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.) expeditious manner. Putting a step forward is a step towards A 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 ofNarcotics' this Court directed that liberal adjou,rnments must be avoided and witnesses once B 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: c "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 D 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 E 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 F 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." G

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 H 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R. A 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. B

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 c 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 D 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. E 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 Iik9" 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 637 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]

which was examined by the National Court Management Systems A 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 8posts, 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 c 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 D 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 E 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, F 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 G 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 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: " {8/ DELAY AND ARREARS COMMITTEE: G 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; H (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 B 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. " c 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 D 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 E 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 Fold 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 G 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. H 640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 B 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 c 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 D 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.

E 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: F "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 G 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 641 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] direct such person to appear before it within such period as A 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 B 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. " (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 D 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 Eelectronic 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 F 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 G 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 H 642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 ofB 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. c 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 D 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 E 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 F 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 G 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 H HUSSAIN AND ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA 643 [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.] interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings. Lack of A 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 Band 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. c

27. To sum up: (i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that - (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 E 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 Fbe 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) (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 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) . B 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' c 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 D 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. E Ankit Gyan Appeals disposed of.