Tarikh pe tarikh is whose fault? Allahabad HC says judges openly face threats; flags faulty police probes

The Allahabad High Court recently observed that judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh are frustrated because they are unable to perform their duties due to insufficient staff, non-cooperation by the police, faulty investigations, and improper forensic reports [Mevalal Prajapati v State of UP]..In an order passed on May 7, Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that while actor Sunny Deol’s iconic dialogue ‘Tarikh pe Tarikh’ may be popular due to delays in the justice system, the judges alone weren’t responsible for the situation.“A filmy dialogue from the film "Damini" released in the year 1993 that "Tarikh pe Tarikh, Tarikh pe Tarikh Milti Rahi hai..... lekin Insaf Nahi Mila My Lord, Insaf Nahi Mila ! Mili Hai to Sirf Tarikh". This dialogue became very popular because it was the perception of a common man, but the reason for it, of course, is not the judicial officer alone, but the State and its police, as a judicial officer can't decide the cases without sufficient staff and the cooperation of police to ensure the presence of the accused, witnesses and a proper FSL report, etc,” the Court said. .The Court also highlighted that judges in UP openly face threats and directed the State to consider providing them Personal Security Officers (PSOs).“On many occasions, criminals gave open threats to judicial officers even in courts during their convictions. Sometimes, when judicial officers visit the marketplace or the public place outside the court, they are indirectly intimidated though veiled threat or otherwise by the criminals, but judicial officers, in the absence of a personal security officer (PSO), used to ignore it to avoid conflict and also to save themselves from being highlighted in the media. This also affects the Judicial function of district court judges, especially the issuance of conviction orders against hardcore criminals,” the Court said.In UP, PSOs are provided only to senior judges like District Judge, the first Additional District Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate. This is unlike Punjab and Haryana, where all judicial officers are provided PSOs, the judge said.The Court said that an independent, fair and transparent judicial system is the backbone of a mature democracy but a judicial system that itself depends on the mercy of the State government for sufficient staff and execution of the court process will become like a government department struggling for basic needs and infrastructures. “Many young judicial officers, who joined the judiciary though very honest and hardworking, having a motto to dispense justice after entering judicial service, found themselves unable to perform because of insufficient staff, non-cooperation by the police in the execution of court processes(summons ,warrants, etc.), and faulty investigation and improper FSL reports. Consequently, they became frustrated and looked to the High Court for remedial measures, but the High Court itself cannot do anything, as it is the State Government that must provide basic infrastructure, staff, the FSL report, and police cooperation,” the Bench said..High Court itself cannot do anything as it is the State Government that must provide basic infrastructure, staff, the FSL report and police cooperation.Allahabad High Court.The Court even said that due to the pendency of cases, many criminals were becoming lawmakers and ministers in Uttar Pradesh."Because of taking advantage of the pendency of criminal cases, many criminals kept on repeating the offences again and again without any fear, and even many of them also became MLAs, MPs, and even Ministers. As per the Association for Democratic Reform's report, as of the date, 49% of Ministers in the U.P. Government are involved in criminal cases, of which 44% are involved in serious criminal cases," the Bench stated.The Court added that if sufficient staff and proper cooperation of police were provided to the district judiciary, then the disposal of criminal cases will become fast and persons taking advantage of the pendency of criminal cases against them would be behind bars."The innocent will get a clean chit and the person with clean antecedents will come forward for MLA, MP, or even for ministers," it emphasised..The Court made these observations in an order passed in a bail plea in a murder case. During the hearing of the case, the Court had taken note of the functioning of Forensic Science Laboratories in UP and also the police’s negligence in handling evidence. On April 29, it summoned Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Krishna, Home Secretary Mohit Gupta and Director FSL Adarsh Kumar. After interacting with the officers, the Court took note of various issues faced by criminal courts in Uttar Pradesh..The Court said the district police chiefs were not attending the monthly monitoring cell meetings held under the chairmanship of the concerned district judges. It directed all the district police chiefs, including the commissioners of police, to personally attend the meetings so that issues regarding the non-execution of court processes and faulty police investigations can be discussed and brought to their attention."This is not only against several government orders and High Court's circulars, but also a disrespect to the District Judge, who is equivalent to the State Government's Principal Secretary. The Commissioner of Police and the Divisional Commissioner are much lower in rank and protocol than a District Judge," it said.The Bench took exception to a government circular declaring a district magistrate to be superior to the district judge."It is also surprising that the State Government has issued an incorrect notification dated 17th July 2013, showing the District Magistrate above the District Judge in protocol, and this must be corrected immediately."The Court also flagged the lack of sufficient staff in courts across UP. It added that despite requests for more staff, the State had not taken any steps. "Therefore, main reason for pendency of cases in district courts is not the capability of the judicial officers but because of shortage of staff, non-execution of court's process by the police and delay as well as incomplete FSL Report, Therefore, it is the State Government as well as Police who are mainly responsible for pendency of criminal cases in district courts even then district judiciary is blamed by the social media and other common persons for non disposal of their cases," the Bench said..The Court issued following directions to address the situation:i. The State shall consider the issue of providing additional staff and infrastructure to the District Courts, considering the heavy workload of cases. ii. The State shall consider making UP FSL an autonomous department under its Home Ministry as requested by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, through different communications. iii. The State shall make its endeavours to fill up vacancies in Forensic Science Laboratories of UP, along with providing high-end instruments within one year. iv. The State/Police will ensure training to police officers for the collection of forensic evidence.v. The State shall also consider the feasibility of providing PSOs to all District Court Judges alike in Punjab and Haryana.vi. DGP, UP, shall issue directions to all District Police Chiefs, including the Commissioner of Police, to attend the monthly Monitoring Cell Meeting under the chairmanship of the concerned District Judge personally. vii DGP shall issue directions to all investigating officers to make a query from FSLs regarding the matching of the DNA of blood found on the blood-stained weapon and cloth with the DNA of the accused and deceased, while sending the blood samples to FSLs.viii. DGP shall issue necessary directions to all the police officers involved in the investigation to record the verified email, messaging applications (WhatsApp, Telegram and Facebook Messenger, etc.) and the mobile number of the accused and witnesses during the investigation and shall mention these verified details in the chargesheet apart from entering in CCTNS as per Rule 8 of E-Processes Rules, 2026. ix. Police shall implement as soon as possible, using the Speech-to-Text AI module to record the statement of witnesses under Section 180 BNSS. x. DGP shall also consider issuing DGP circular to all police officers, mentioning therein that negligence in execution of court processes may attract disciplinary proceedings as required by Rule 31 (1) of BNSS Rules, 2024. xi. Judicial officers are also directed to send e-summons, e-warrants and other court processes as per BNSS Rules, 2024 as well as E-Processes Rules, 2026 and also consume e-FIR and e-chargesheet as per mandates of BNSS, 2023..[Read Order]