The Supreme Court expressed extreme disappointment on Monday upon learning that a man, arrested as a 28-year-old in November 1983 for fatally shooting a person, waited for more than four decades for the Allahabad High Court to decide his appeal against conviction and a life sentence imposed by a trial court.
Judicial Concern Over Pendency
A visibly disturbed bench comprising Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and AS Chandurkar pondered innovative measures to address the clogged wheels of justice in the Allahabad High Court. The court noted that the prolonged pendency of cases in the high court has consistently driven litigants to file appeals in the Supreme Court, seeking directions for expeditious hearings.
Bail Continued After 41-Year Wait
Upon discovering that the appellant had spent only three months in custody and had been on bail for nearly 43 years, the bench decided to continue his bail pending his appeal against the high court judgment. The high court's decision had taken 41 years to materialize.
Justice Mishra asked senior advocate Siddharth Dave and advocate Zoheb Hossain for suggestions to expedite hearings in the high court. Dave proposed dismissing all prosecution appeals that have been pending for three decades. However, the bench disagreed, stating that the fundamentals of adjudication do not permit dismissal merely due to prolonged pendency. The court emphasized that dismissing prosecution appeals without providing an opportunity to address the court could harm public interest.
Case Background
In the present case, Vijay Singh, then 28 years old, was convicted for murder in December 1985 by a sessions court in Kanpur, two years after he shot and killed his brother. He immediately appealed the trial court verdict before the Allahabad High Court, which finally dismissed his appeal in a 20-page judgment on February 9, 2024.
Singh's appeal stated, 'He is now 72 years old. For over four decades, through youth, middle age, and now old age, he has lived under the shadow of that conviction... His criminal appeal languished before the high court for 40 years before being finally heard and dismissed almost summarily.'
Vijay Singh further argued, 'This Special Leave Petition is, in the truest sense, his last recourse and, as will be demonstrated, the conviction itself rests on deeply infirm foundations which have been completely overlooked by the high court.'
