How Madras High Court plans to tackle two key issues that lead to delays in criminal trials

The Madras High Court recently issued directions to ensure that trial judges in Tamil Nadu take chargesheets filed by the police in criminal cases on record promptly to commence trials without delays, and so that non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued to secure the presence of accused during trials are not left unexecuted for years [A Paulraj v. State].

Justice P Velmurgan passed the order while dealing with a batch of cases in which he noticed that lapses on these two key procedural aspects had led to delays in trial.

He noted that such issues had persisted despite multiple corrective directions from the Supreme Court and the High Court, including by administrative circulars.

The judge expressed anguish that when the police and judicial authorities act arbitrarily and fail to adhere to the rule of law, it results in serious erosion of institutional discipline and respect for judicial norms.

"It not only undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system, but also sends a dangerous signal to the accused, enabling them to evade due process, while causing serious hardship to the complainant...Both the police and the judiciary bear a joint institutional responsibility to deliver justice, particularly to poor and voiceless complainants who approach the system in the hope of redress. Justice must not be denied or delayed due to procedural irregularities or administrative indifference. When an aggrieved citizen knocks on the doors of the court, it is the solemn duty of every stakeholder be it the police or the court to ensure that the process is fair, transparent, and in strict conformity with the law," the judge added.

On chargesheets submitted to trial courts

Justice Velmurugan noted that litigants have repeatedly been forced to approach the High Court to ensure that chargesheets are taken on file without delay.

He noted that such delays by trial judges reflected a lack of seriousness and not only causes undue hardships to litigants, but also undermines public confidence in the justice delivery system.

“Delay in even taking a final report on file, particularly when there are standing directions from this Court, undermines judicial discipline and conveys an unwarranted impression of systemic indifference. Courts cannot remain passive in the face of such lapses that result in avoidable hardship to citizens."

The Court went on to make it clear that chargesheets or final reports submitted to magistrates hereafter must be taken on file forthwith, and necessary follow-up action should be initiated without undue delay.

“No case shall remain at the stage of ‘charge sheet filed but not taken on file,’ as such procedural stagnation defeats the very object of fair and timely administration of criminal justice."

Irregularities in filing of chargesheets

The Court also acknowledged concerns that in combined trial court complexes, chargesheets that are e-filed are not properly segregated in the system to specify which court they should be assigned to, leaving judicial officers to manually verify each charge sheet.

This leads to administrative burdens and delays, Justice Velmurugan noted.

He, therefore, directed the Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) to convene a meeting with judicial officers and administrative staff to devise a mechanism under which e-filed chargesheets are automatically routed, flagged and made readily identifiable by the concerned courts.

Another issue flagged was the manner in which chargesheets are filed by the police, with chargesheets either not being uploaded in the correct format or their being incomplete and lacking necessary details. In some instances, chargesheets are even filed before courts which do not have jurisdiction, the Court noted.

The Director General of Police was, therefore, requested to instruct all investigating agencies to strictly adhere to the prescribed procedure and format while filing final reports.

The Court also recommended that a structured training sessions be conducted on such matters.

Execution of NBWs

The Court said that it was deeply troubling that over 61,000 NBWs remained unexecuted between 1985 and 2024. It went on to opine that both judicial officers and the police must take personal responsibility to correct this state of affairs.

"The prolonged non-execution of Non-Bailable Warrants over such an extended period reflects a serious lapse in the functioning of the enforcement machinery and weakens the effectiveness of the criminal justice system."

The judge added that when courts fail to act against absconding accused persons, it encourages them to evade the law with impunity.

“More alarmingly, it sends a completely unacceptable message to society that the system can be manipulated or delayed indefinitely without consequence."

Justice Velmurugan proceeded to appoint a nodal officer to help the High Court monitor the compliance of its directives. The nodal officer is required to inspect all subordinate courts in Tamil Nadu, impart necessary training and verify various aspects such as:

- whether trial courts have been properly maintaining registers with respect to NBWs, case properties et.;

- whether judicial officers and court staff are complying with procedures relating to the attachment, custody and implementation of orders regarding seized properties;

- whether case properties are being disposed of in accordance with the orders of the respective courts, and whether any lapse, delay or negligence exists in the continued retention or mismanagement of such properties.

The nodal officer was ordered to file district-wise interim reports before the Registrar General of the High Court as and when each inspection is completed.

"Thereafter, a comprehensive report shall be submitted to this Court within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order," the High Court added.

Once the final, comprehensive report is submitted, the Registrar has been ordered to initiate appropriate administrative or disciplinary action against any judicial officer, court staff or authority found to have neglected or binding directions issued by the Supreme Court and the High Court.

The High Court added that it will take up the matter next in three months to examine whether its directives are being complied with.

Advocates G Balamanikandan, Ravindra Ram, JN Naresh Kumar, and KR Samrat appeared for various petitioners.

Government Advocates (Criminal Side) S Vinoth Kumar and Dr CE Pratap represented the State.

[Read Order]