Allahabad High Court asks its administrative wing to examine plea to streamline caveats in criminal cases

The Allahabad High Court recently indicated that its administrative side will examine a plea seeking the introduction of a system to streamline the filing, registration and notification of caveats in criminal proceedings [Anupriya Agarwal vs State of UP and Another].

A Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) petition that flagged a gap in the Allahabad Hon'ble Court Rules, 1952.

The petition filed by advocate Anupriya Agarwal pointed out that these rules did not lay down any specific mechanism for filing, registering, processing or notifying caveats in criminal proceedings such as in bail applications, criminal appeals, etc.

Caveat pleas are requests made to a court to hear a party before passing any order in a matter that may affect their interests.

The Court observed that while the petition for a formal caveat filing system prima facie raises an important issue concerning access to justice, the subject matter essentially pertains to court procedure.

It, therefore, opined that the matter should be examined on the administrative side.

"Prima facie, the P.I.L. raises an important issue regarding access to justice and facilitating the same. It is a matter of procedure essentially. Therefore, let the petitioner's representation copy of which is annexed as Annexure no.1 to the writ petition and is addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court be considered by the High Court on the administrative side," the Court directed.

In the plea, Agarwal had sought an amendment to Chapter XXII of Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (writ petitions other than Habeas Corpus).

The petitioner highlighted the need to establish a formal framework for filing, registering, processing, and notifying caveats across criminal matters, including bail, anticipatory bail, revisions, appeals, petitions seeking the quashing of criminal cases, etc.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the absence of a criminal caveat mechanism under the High Court Rules severely prejudiced the rights of victims of crimes and informants.

As there was no formal system to notify them, victims’ counsel find it difficult to track listings of such cases and contest proceedings instituted by accused persons, the petitioner's counsel explained.

The petitioner, therefore, urged the Court to direct that a reasoned decision be taken on an October 13 representation addressed to the Chief Justice on this issue, keeping in mind victim rights, fair procedure, the liberty of accused, and the need for expeditious criminal justice administration.

In view of the procedural nature of the prayer, the Bench decided to close the writ petition on the judicial side. However, the Court added that the petitioner's representation would be examined on the administrative side.

Advocates Saksham Agarwal, Pranshu Agrawal, and Rakesh Kumar Agarwal appeared for the petitioner.

Chief Standing Counsel and advocate Shishir Jain represented the respondent authorities.

[Read Order]