By Shazia Siddiqui

In a recent legal case, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Patna High Court regarding the alarming haste exhibited by a Trial Judge in delivering a judgment within an unreasonably short period. The case involved two criminal appeals brought forth by a Special Judge who had presided over a trial and issued a judgment. The crux of the matter lay in the High Court’s scrutiny of the Trial Judge’s actions, prompting concerns about procedural integrity and the rights of the accused.

The High Court, in its order of remittal, highlighted the Trial Judge’s startling speed in pronouncing a judgment of conviction for a capital offence merely 40 minutes after the conclusion of arguments. Such expeditiousness raised doubts about the authenticity of the judgment and the integrity of the trial process. It begged the question of whether the judgment was pre-prepared, rendering the trial a mere formality.

The Supreme Court, in its analysis, concurred with the High Court’s assessment, emphasizing the fundamental denial of due process to the accused throughout the proceedings. At each stage, from the framing of charges to the pronouncement of judgment, there existed a consistent pattern of disregard for procedural safeguards. The accused was deprived of the opportunity to consult with legal counsel and was not granted adequate time to review crucial documents pertinent to their defense.

Furthermore, the absence of adherence to established protocols, such as the Witness Protection Scheme and Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, further compounded the procedural irregularities. These oversights underscored a systemic failure to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice.

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the High Court’s findings served as a stern reminder of the pivotal role procedural fairness plays in safeguarding the rights of individuals within the legal system. It underscored the imperative of conducting trials with diligence, impartiality, and respect for due process.

Moreover, the Court’s acknowledgment of the Trial Judge’s fortuitous evasion of disciplinary action despite their questionable conduct highlighted the need for greater accountability within the judiciary. While the appellant judicial officer escaped formal reprimand, the dismissal of their appeal served as a tacit rebuke of their actions.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principle that justice delayed is preferable to justice denied. It underscored the inherent value of procedural integrity and the importance of upholding the rights of the accused, even in the face of expedience. By holding judicial officers accountable for their actions and prioritizing the principles of fairness and equity, the Court reaffirmed its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring access to justice for all.

Case Title: Sunita Devi vs The State of Bihar & Anr.

Citation: Cr. WJC No. 937 of 2008

Click here to read/Download the judgement