Delhi High Court Issues Directions To Ensure That Custody Of An Undertrial Prisoner Is Not Extended Mechanically
The Delhi High Court has recently issued directions to ensure that custody of undertrial prisoners (UTPs) is not extended mechanically, emphasizing the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court’s directions aim to avoid the routine and mechanical extension of judicial custody, particularly in cases where no progress is being made in investigations or trials.
⚖️ Legal Background
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees:
"No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
This implies that any deprivation of liberty — including judicial custody — must be fair, just, and not arbitrary.
🧑⚖️ Key Case: Court on its Own Motion v. State (Delhi High Court, 2024)
📌 Context:
The Delhi High Court took suo motu cognizance of the practice of mechanically extending custody of undertrial prisoners without proper judicial application of mind. This arose from instances where remand was extended in a routine manner, even when:
Investigation was incomplete
Charge sheet was not filed in time
There was no justification given for continued custody
📝 Directions Issued by the Delhi High Court:
Non-mechanical Extension of Custody:
Custody should not be extended merely on the request of the investigating officer or prosecution.
Magistrates must apply judicial mind and record reasons for extending custody.
Production of Accused:
Wherever feasible, the accused must be physically or virtually produced at the time of remand extension.
Scrutiny of Case Progress:
The Court must examine the status of investigation/trial.
If no substantial progress has occurred, custody should not be extended without justification.
Right to Legal Aid:
If the accused is unrepresented, the court must ensure that legal aid counsel is provided.
Remand Orders Must be Reasoned:
Orders extending remand must briefly indicate:
Status of investigation/trial
Need for continued custody
Accused's representation (if any)
Reminders to Jail Authorities and Police:
They must ensure timely production of UTPs and communicate progress of investigation.
📚 Supporting Case Laws
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Principle: “Procedure established by law” must be just, fair and reasonable.
Relevance: Arbitrary extensions of custody violate Article 21.
2. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260
The Supreme Court emphasized that arrest and custody must not be routine.
Relevance: Highlights need for judicial oversight in custody matters.
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
Held that arrest and detention must not be mechanical; officers must justify the necessity.
Relevance: This reasoning applies to judicial custody as well.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
Recognized the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21.
Relevance: UTPs cannot be kept in jail for indefinite periods due to systemic delays.
🧾 Implications of the Ruling
Magistrates must be vigilant and act as protectors of liberty, not rubber stamps.
Ensures accountability of investigation agencies.
Encourages speedier trials and disposal of cases.
Strengthens due process and constitutional protections for the accused.
✅ Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s directions are a strong reaffirmation of the constitutional mandate that liberty cannot be curtailed arbitrarily or mechanically. Courts are duty-bound to ensure that custody is not extended without genuine necessity, and that all remand orders reflect judicial application of mind.
These directions are intended to uphold the dignity of the individual, prevent misuse of the criminal justice system, and reduce overcrowding in jails by addressing unjustified detentions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments