SUPREME COURT TRANSFERS CASES FROM ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AFTER 6-YEAR DELAY IN PRONOUNCING RESERVED VERDICTS:

The Supreme Court of India recently exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 139A of the Constitution to transfer three long-pending criminal revision petitions from the Allahabad High Court to itself. These revisions, which had been heard and judgment reserved as far back as February 5, 2020, have remained undecided for over six years, resulting in repeated adjournments and no pronouncement of orders. The prolonged inaction has directly stalled the trial in a murder case stemming from an incident on May 30, 1994, preventing the Trial Court from proceeding due to an ongoing stay order.

The case reached the Supreme Court through a writ petition filed under Article 32 by the legal heir of the victim. The petitioner sought enforcement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21, highlighting the denial of speedy justice caused by the High Court's failure to deliver judgment. The petition also urged implementation of the Supreme Court's earlier order dated July 15, 2024, which had directed the Allahabad High Court to re-evaluate and decide the matter concerning the withdrawal of charges against one of the accused.

The background of the case traces back to a First Information Report lodged in 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against nine accused persons, with proceedings against an absconding accused added in 2004. In 2008, the Uttar Pradesh Government sought to withdraw prosecution against one accused, Chhotey Singh, and later amended its application under Section 321 CrPC to seek withdrawal against all accused. The Trial Court, in May 2012, permitted withdrawal only against Chhotey Singh while rejecting it for the others, allowing the trial against the remaining accused to continue. Aggrieved parties filed three criminal revision petitions challenging these orders, and the victim's legal heirs also challenged the withdrawal granted to Chhotey Singh.

The Allahabad High Court heard the revisions and reserved judgment on February 5, 2020, but failed to pronounce it thereafter. In a related challenge, the High Court had upheld the withdrawal of charges against Chhotey Singh, prompting the victim's heirs to approach the Supreme Court. In July 2024, the Supreme Court set aside that High Court order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, expressing serious concern over the delay in trial proceedings and the impact of repeated adjournments. Despite this directive, the pending revisions remained unresolved, with the matters last listed on February 4, 2026, only to be adjourned again.

A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that courts ordinarily refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Article 139A in Article 32 proceedings. However, the bench found this case exceptional because the continued pendency of the revisions before the High Court was directly responsible for the petitioner's denial of speedy justice, leaving the criminal trial completely stalled for decades. The bench emphasized that the issues raised were no longer limited to the private interests of the parties; they involved substantial questions of broader importance, including the effective enforcement of the Supreme Court's binding directions, the constitutional obligation of timely adjudication after judgment is reserved, and the credibility of the criminal justice process in serious offences where prolonged delay causes irreversible prejudice.

The Court noted that Article 139A(1) enables the Supreme Court to withdraw cases pending before a High Court when the same or substantially similar questions of law of substantial and general importance arise, ensuring coherent and authoritative adjudication. In this instance, the provision provided the appropriate constitutional mechanism to transfer the revisions to the Supreme Court so that the adjudicatory process does not become illusory due to indefinite pendency and to ensure full compliance with the July 15, 2024, judgment in a time-bound manner.

Consequently, the Supreme Court issued notice in the writ petition, directed the withdrawal of the three criminal revision petitions from the Allahabad High Court, and ordered them to be tagged with the present writ petition for disposal. The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court was instructed to transmit the records within three weeks. Upon receipt, the Supreme Court Registry was to place all connected matters before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.