44 Years for Justice: When the System Comes Under Trial
NewsBharati 25-Aug-2026 11:48:14 AM
Total Views |
A criminal justice system is expected to answer one basic question within a reasonable time. Who is guilty and who is not? When that answer takes 44 years, the delay is no longer an administrative inconvenience. It becomes a failure of the system itself. That is the significance of the Supreme Court's intervention in the 1981 Jharkhand double-murder case. The Court has described the extraordinary delay as a “failure of the judicial system” and has decided to examine how a criminal proceeding could remain trapped in the system for more than four decades. The observation deserves far greater attention.
The gravity of the original crime must not be forgotten. This was a double murder. The victims and their families were entitled to justice just as much as the accused was entitled to a fair and reasonably prompt determination of his case. That is precisely why this case cannot be reduced to an argument about the rights of an accused alone. The victims were denied timely justice. The accused endured decades of uncertainty and incarceration. Society was left waiting for the criminal justice system to complete its job. Everybody lost.
That is what makes the Supreme Court's observation so significant. It is not merely saying that one judge, one court or one proceeding moved slowly. It has put the functioning of the judicial system itself under examination. And that examination must be wider than the judiciary. A criminal case does not begin in a courtroom. It begins with investigation. Police officers collect evidence, identify suspects and prepare the case. Prosecutors then present that case before the court. Defence lawyers have their legitimate role in protecting the rights of the accused. Trial courts assess evidence and pronounce judgment. Appellate courts examine convictions and appeals. Court registries list matters, maintain records and manage the movement of cases. Governments are responsible for providing judicial infrastructure, personnel and resources. Prison authorities hold those whose liberty has been curtailed.
The criminal justice system is a chain. If a case takes 44 years, every link deserves scrutiny.
That does not mean that every stakeholder is equally responsible in this particular case. Responsibility must be established from the records, not assumed. But neither should the system hide behind the convenient phrase “judicial delay” as though delay were an independent force of nature. Why did the trial take 22 years? Why did the appeal take another 22? How many hearings were actually held? How many adjournments were sought and by whom? Were witnesses unavailable? Were records missing? Were there procedural complications? Were there vacancies? Was the prosecution adequately prepared? Did the defence seek repeated adjournments? Were there administrative failures in listing the matter? Were there periods during which the case simply remained unattended?
These are not academic questions. They are the questions that convert outrage into accountability.
The Supreme Court has taken some important steps. It has sought the original records from the trial court and the High Court, including physical and digital records. It has sought explanations regarding the extraordinary delay and directed attention to the wider problem of criminal appeals pending before the High Court. The Registrar General has been asked to place relevant information before the Court, and the matter is being examined further. This is welcome. But it must not end with another report.
India has heard the vocabulary of judicial reform for decades. Case management, digitisation, e-Courts, alternative dispute resolution, additional judges, better infrastructure and reduction of adjournments. Many of these measures are necessary, and significant progress has indeed been made in modernising court administration. But the existence of reform programmes cannot become an alibi for cases that consume entire lifetimes. Digitising a delayed system does not automatically make it a speedy system. Increasing the number of courts does not by itself guarantee effective prosecution. And blaming the judiciary alone ignores the fact that criminal justice is an institutional ecosystem. What is required is case-specific accountability combined with systemic correction. Long-pending criminal appeals involving persons in custody should receive exceptional priority. Old cases must be periodically reviewed. Adjournments should be scrutinised rather than mechanically granted. Court vacancies and infrastructure gaps require sustained attention. Investigating and prosecuting agencies must also be made conscious that a case does not end when the charge sheet is filed. It ends only when justice has reached a legally final conclusion.
The question now is whether the system will respond with introspection or merely administration.
Forty-four years cannot be explained away as “pendency”. Forty-four years is a lifetime. Five accused died before the legal process reached its present stage. The surviving accused reached old age. The victims' families spent decades carrying the consequences of a crime that occurred in 1981. The Supreme Court's words “failure of the judicial system” should therefore not be treated as just another judicial observation. They should become the starting point for an institutional audit. The Court must find where those 44 years went. And once that is known, the country must ensure that they do not disappear again.
The chronology is almost unbelievable. The crime took place in 1981. The trial court took approximately 22 years to conclude the proceedings. The accused were convicted in 2002. The appeal then remained pending before the Jharkhand High Court for another 22 years and was decided only in 2024. Forty-four years. Five of the six accused died during this prolonged legal journey. The sole surviving convict is now in his seventies, reportedly bedridden and in custody. The Supreme Court has suspended his sentence and permitted his release on bail while examining the extraordinary delay.
That is what makes the Supreme Court's observation so significant. It is not merely saying that one judge, one court or one proceeding moved slowly. It has put the functioning of the judicial system itself under examination. And that examination must be wider than the judiciary. A criminal case does not begin in a courtroom. It begins with investigation. Police officers collect evidence, identify suspects and prepare the case. Prosecutors then present that case before the court. Defence lawyers have their legitimate role in protecting the rights of the accused. Trial courts assess evidence and pronounce judgment. Appellate courts examine convictions and appeals. Court registries list matters, maintain records and manage the movement of cases. Governments are responsible for providing judicial infrastructure, personnel and resources. Prison authorities hold those whose liberty has been curtailed.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh’s Dhakeshwari temple faces controversy over a Muslim transgender's wedding
That does not mean that every stakeholder is equally responsible in this particular case. Responsibility must be established from the records, not assumed. But neither should the system hide behind the convenient phrase “judicial delay” as though delay were an independent force of nature. Why did the trial take 22 years? Why did the appeal take another 22? How many hearings were actually held? How many adjournments were sought and by whom? Were witnesses unavailable? Were records missing? Were there procedural complications? Were there vacancies? Was the prosecution adequately prepared? Did the defence seek repeated adjournments? Were there administrative failures in listing the matter? Were there periods during which the case simply remained unattended?
These are not academic questions. They are the questions that convert outrage into accountability.
The Supreme Court has taken some important steps. It has sought the original records from the trial court and the High Court, including physical and digital records. It has sought explanations regarding the extraordinary delay and directed attention to the wider problem of criminal appeals pending before the High Court. The Registrar General has been asked to place relevant information before the Court, and the matter is being examined further. This is welcome. But it must not end with another report.
India has heard the vocabulary of judicial reform for decades. Case management, digitisation, e-Courts, alternative dispute resolution, additional judges, better infrastructure and reduction of adjournments. Many of these measures are necessary, and significant progress has indeed been made in modernising court administration. But the existence of reform programmes cannot become an alibi for cases that consume entire lifetimes. Digitising a delayed system does not automatically make it a speedy system. Increasing the number of courts does not by itself guarantee effective prosecution. And blaming the judiciary alone ignores the fact that criminal justice is an institutional ecosystem. What is required is case-specific accountability combined with systemic correction. Long-pending criminal appeals involving persons in custody should receive exceptional priority. Old cases must be periodically reviewed. Adjournments should be scrutinised rather than mechanically granted. Court vacancies and infrastructure gaps require sustained attention. Investigating and prosecuting agencies must also be made conscious that a case does not end when the charge sheet is filed. It ends only when justice has reached a legally final conclusion.
Most importantly, the system needs reliable data about where cases spend their time. A case should not simply be described as “pending for 20 years”. The system should be able to show why it has been pending for 20 years. That is where technology can become more than digitisation. Proper case-tracking can identify bottlenecks, repeated adjournments, prolonged periods without effective hearings and cases involving elderly or incarcerated accused. What gets measured can be managed; what remains invisible can continue indefinitely.
ALSO READ: Bangladesh’s Dhakeshwari temple faces controversy over a Muslim transgender's wedding
There is also a constitutional dimension that cannot be ignored. The right to a fair procedure cannot be separated from the idea of reasonable timeliness. A conviction is not the end of an accused person's constitutional rights. An appeal is part of the legal process. When an appeal takes decades, the distinction between punishment imposed by law and punishment produced by delay becomes deeply uncomfortable. But the answer is not to weaken the rights of victims or dilute criminal trials in the name of speed. Speed without fairness is not justice. But fairness without reasonable speed can also become injustice. The Supreme Court has therefore performed an important institutional service by turning the judicial gaze inward.
Forty-four years cannot be explained away as “pendency”. Forty-four years is a lifetime. Five accused died before the legal process reached its present stage. The surviving accused reached old age. The victims' families spent decades carrying the consequences of a crime that occurred in 1981. The Supreme Court's words “failure of the judicial system” should therefore not be treated as just another judicial observation. They should become the starting point for an institutional audit. The Court must find where those 44 years went. And once that is known, the country must ensure that they do not disappear again.
Editor's Desk
Editor's Desk