New Delhi, Jan 9, 2026: The Supreme Court of India has issued strong directions to 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 remained stalled for years due to interim orders. The apex court underscored that prolonged delays in the judicial process amount to a “mockery of justice”, stressing the need to balance the rights of the accused with those of victims and their families.

Court Observations

A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and KV Vishwanathan highlighted the systemic consequences of stalled trials. “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 a mockery of justice,” the bench said. The court emphasized that justice must be delivered not only to the accused but also to victims and their families, noting that long delays erode public confidence in the judicial system.

The Supreme Court requested high courts to collect data on interim orders that have stayed criminal trials and to ensure that cases involving grave offences are taken up expeditiously. The bench specifically flagged situations where interim relief has persisted for long periods without effective monitoring, leaving cases unresolved despite their severity.

Background: Dowry Death Case from Rajasthan

The directions were issued while examining a disturbing dowry death case from Rajasthan, where proceedings have remained stalled for over two decades. The case involves the death of Deepa, married to Vijay Kumar in November 2001. Within a year, she passed away at her matrimonial home. An FIR was registered on January 10, 2002, at the Nasirabad police station in Ajmer under sections relating to dowry death and cruelty, following a complaint by her brother alleging continuous harassment and administration of poison.

A charge sheet was filed and charges were framed against Vijay Kumar and his family. However, in January 2003, the accused challenged the framing of charges in the Rajasthan High Court, which stayed further proceedings in February 2003. The criminal revision petition remained pending for nearly 22 years, with sporadic hearings only in August 2023, March 2024, and July 2024. The high court eventually dismissed the petition on August 1, 2025, after which the accused approached the Supreme Court.

While the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and upheld the high court’s final order, it expressed deep concern over the lengthy delay, stating that the case raises critical questions about why a serious criminal matter was left unresolved for over two decades and why the state did not ensure early listing and disposal.

Directives to High Courts

The bench issued the following directions:

1. Chief Justices of all High Courts must review pending criminal trials that have been stalled due to interim orders, particularly in serious offences such as murder, rape, and dowry deaths.
2. High courts are required to collect comprehensive data on all interim orders staying criminal trials and submit a report to the Supreme Court.
3. Courts must ensure that serious and high-profile cases are taken up expeditiously, preventing undue delays that compromise justice.
4. For the Rajasthan case specifically, the Registrar General has been directed to send all records to the Supreme Court via a special messenger and provide information on:
   • How many criminal revision petitions were decided between 2001 and 2026.
   • How often the present revision petition was listed for hearing.
   • Why the state government did not take proactive steps for early disposal.

The bench noted that this case should serve as an eye-opener for all high courts in India, highlighting the broader problem of indefinite stays and stalled trials in serious criminal matters.

Balancing Rights of Accused and Victims

The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that while the accused have constitutional rights, the justice system must also protect the rights of victims and their families. Long delays in criminal proceedings can lead to loss of evidence, witness fatigue, and erosion of public trust, all of which undermine the rule of law.

Advocate Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared for the state of Rajasthan and accepted notice, while advocate Abhishek Gupta represented the petitioner and was permitted to assist the court in the interest of justice.

The bench’s intervention reflects a growing judicial concern over procedural delays in criminal trials, which have become a significant barrier to effective law enforcement in India. The Supreme Court’s call to action underscores the urgency of reforming case management practices in high courts to ensure timely delivery of justice in serious criminal matters.