Ensure Trials Aren’t Delayed Due To Non-Production Of Accused: SC
⚖️ Ensure Trials Aren’t Delayed Due To Non-Production Of Accused: Supreme Court
📌 Context
The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that criminal trials should not be delayed merely because the accused is not produced before the trial court on a given date. The Court has held that such delays amount to a denial of the Right to Speedy Trial, which is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The SC has directed trial courts, prison authorities, and investigating agencies to adopt practical measures like video conferencing, production warrants, or alternative mechanisms to ensure the trial continues without unnecessary adjournments.
⚖️ Legal Principles
Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21
Delay in trial, especially due to procedural lapses like non-production of accused, violates the constitutional right to speedy justice.
Judicial Responsibility
Courts must take proactive steps to prevent adjournments.
Where physical production is not possible (due to transfer, distance, or security), courts must use video conferencing facilities.
Accountability of Authorities
Jail authorities and police must ensure accused persons in custody are produced on scheduled dates.
Failure to do so cannot be allowed to stall proceedings indefinitely.
📝 Supreme Court’s Observations
Non-production ≠ Justification for Delay
Merely because the accused is not brought to court should not be a reason for the trial to drag on.
Use of Technology
Video conferencing is now legally recognized (see State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai), and courts must rely on it to avoid adjournments.
Balance of Rights
While accused have the right to be present during trial, this right cannot be stretched to paralyze the judicial process.
📚 Important Case Laws
1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) 3 SCC 532
Landmark case recognizing speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 4 SCC 33
SC held that prolonged delays in trials due to systemic inefficiency violate Article 21.
3. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
The Court recognized video conferencing as a valid mode of recording evidence.
This principle extends to the production of accused as well.
4. Supreme Court (Recent Directions, 2024–25)
Directed trial courts and authorities that:
Trials must proceed without unnecessary adjournments.
Non-production of accused should not halt proceedings.
Alternative mechanisms like video conferencing must be used.
✅ Conclusion
The Supreme Court has made it clear that:
Trials must not be stalled merely due to non-production of accused.
Courts must adopt video conferencing, production warrants, or other legal alternatives.
This ensures protection of the Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 and avoids backlog of criminal cases.
RELATED Blog
0 comments