The Supreme Court on Thursday urged the chief justices of all high courts to urgently review criminal cases involving serious offences such as murder, rape and dowry deaths where trials have been stalled for years due to interim orders and expedite them, cautioning that such prolonged stays would amount to a “mockery of justice”.
A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and KV Viswanathan emphasised that the justice delivery system must balance the rights of the accused with those of victims and their families. “If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders by high courts, it would lead to mockery of justice. Justice has to be done with all parties and not only with the accused. Justice must be done to the victims and their families too,” the bench said.
In its order, the bench requested chief justices of all high courts to call for data on interim orders staying criminal trials and to ensure that cases involving grave offences, particularly murder, dowry deaths and rape, are taken up expeditiously. The court specifically flagged situations where interim relief has continued for long periods without effective monitoring.
“In short, we request all chief justices to ensure that pending trials within their jurisdiction due to interim orders in serious and high-profile cases, especially in cases of murder, dowry deaths and rape, are take up quickly,” it said.
The directions came while dealing with what the bench described as a “disturbing” and “painful” case of a dowry death from Rajasthan, where the criminal trial has remained stalled for over two decades because of a stay granted by the high court.
According to the record, the deceased, Deepa, was married to petitioner Vijay Kumar in November 2001. Within a year of her marriage, she died in her matrimonial home. On January 10, 2002, an FIR was registered at the Nasirabad police station in Ajmer under provisions relating to dowry death and cruelty, based on a complaint by her brother alleging persistent harassment over dowry demands and that she was killed by administering poison.
Following investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the trial court framed charges against Kumar and his family members. However, in January 2003, the accused approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the framing of charges. In February 2003, the high court stayed further proceedings in the trial.
What followed, the bench noted, was an “unfortunate saga”. The criminal revision petition remained pending for nearly 22 years. It was taken up for hearing only in August 2023, released for rehearing in March 2024, heard again in July 2024, and finally dismissed on August 1, 2025 — prompting the accused to approach the Supreme Court.
While dismissing the petition and finding no infirmity in the high court’s final order, the bench said the case raised “many questions begging for answers”. Chief among them, it said, was why a challenge to the framing of charges in a serious dowry death case remained pending for 23 years, and why the matter was not listed for early hearing despite the interim stay.
Expressing deep concern, the court directed the Registrar General of the Rajasthan High Court to send all records relating to the case to the Supreme Court through a special messenger. It also sought information on how many criminal revision petitions were decided by the Rajasthan High Court between 2001 and 2026, how often the present revision was listed for hearing, and why the state government did not take steps to seek early disposal.
“This litigation is an eye-opener for all high courts in the country,” said the bench, noting that prolonged stays in serious criminal cases undermine public confidence in the justice system.
Advocate Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the state of Rajasthan and accepted notice, while advocate Abhishek Gupta, appearing for the petitioner, was permitted to assist the court in the interest of justice.
Curated by Dr. Elena Rodriguez
