ENDING THE CULTURE OF ADJOURNMENTS: SUPREME COURT ON SPEEDY TRIALS

In CBI v. Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali (SLP (Crl.) No. 969 of 2025, decided on 22 September 2025), a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan addressed systemic delays in criminal trials, particularly in sensitive cases involving sexual offences. The Court was deeply concerned with the practice of deferring witness examinations, observing that piecemeal trials erode the fairness of proceedings and create opportunities for witness tampering. The ruling reaffirms the constitutional mandate of speedy trial under Article 21 and issues detailed directives for strict compliance with Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 346 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).

 

BRIEF FACTS

The case arose from a challenge by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against an Order of the High Court granting bail to the Respondent, accused of rape. The Accused had already spent more than three years in custody before being released on bail in September 2024.

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it noted with concern that although the trial had commenced, the cross-examination of the victim was adjourned for four months. The victim had fallen ill while in the witness box on 25 August 2025, leading the trial court to fix the next date for her evidence as 18 December 2025. The Supreme Court found this deferment problematic, as such long adjournments provide scope for tampering with witnesses and undermine the spirit of a fair trial.

The Trial Court later explained that the adjournment was due to the victim’s illness and the heavy backlog of cases, including NDPS and murder trials, in addition to the forthcoming Puja vacation. It also assured that the victim’s cross-examination had been rescheduled for 24 October 2025 and that future witnesses would be examined consecutively.

 

ISSUES OF LAW

• Whether long adjournments of witness examination in serious criminal cases violate the mandate of Section 309 CrPC (now Section 346 BNSS, 2023).
• Whether the right to speedy trial under Article 21 extends to ensuring continuous day-to-day recording of evidence.
• What directions are necessary to prevent misuse of adjournments and ensure fair and expeditious criminal trials.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over the widespread practice of conducting criminal trials in a fragmented manner. It emphasized several key principles:

Mandate of Section 309 CrPC: Once witness examination begins, proceedings must continue from day to day until completion, unless there are compelling and recorded reasons for adjournment. Flimsy excuses, including the convenience of counsel, are not sufficient.

Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21: The Court reiterated that speedy trial is a fundamental right, flowing from Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1980), A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) and subsequent decisions. It encompasses investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal and retrial.

Dangers of Piecemeal Trials: Delays in cross-examination, particularly in cases of sexual offences, expose victims and witnesses to threats, inducements, and intimidation. Citing Vinod Kumar v. State of Punjab (2015) and Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab (2000), the Court noted that such practices often lead to miscarriage of justice.

Role of the Bar and the Bench: The Court stressed that adjournments cannot be used as tactics to frustrate trials. Both advocates and presiding judges bear responsibility for ensuring the sanctity and integrity of proceedings.

Institutional Directions: Recognizing the systemic nature of the problem, the Court directed that Chief Justices of all High Courts issue circulars to district judiciaries mandating strict compliance with Section 309, prohibiting unnecessary adjournments, empowering trial judges to impose costs, cancel bail in cases of deliberate delay and even appoint amicus curiae where defence counsel is non-cooperative.

On the specific bail issue, the Court declined to cancel the Respondent’s bail, since he had already been out on bail for nearly a year. Instead, it directed the trial court to conclude the victim’s examination promptly and complete the trial with judgment by 31 December 2025.

 

CONCLUSION

This Judgment serves as a strong reminder of the judiciary’s constitutional duty to uphold the right to a speedy and fair trial. By addressing the culture of adjournments and directing systemic reforms, the Supreme Court has sought to restore credibility to the criminal justice system. The decision goes beyond the individual case to highlight structural weaknesses and prescribes corrective measures to curb abuse of adjournments. Ultimately, it reinforces that justice delayed is indeed justice denied—not only to the accused but also to the victim and society at large.

 

SARTHAK KALRA

Senior Legal Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

 

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “MSMEs in India 2025 | Delayed Payments | Supreme Court Judgments by Advocate Sushila Ram Varma” can be viewed at the link below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me1xbu40OrM&t=24s