Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
HUSSAINARA KHATOON & OTHERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR & OTHERSW I T HWRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1995
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
BENCH:
AHMADI A.M. (CJ)
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (5) 326 1995 SCALE (4)633
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
A large number of criminal writ petitions, many of them
based on letters, were grouped together as petitions by
under-trial prisoners and certain orders were passed from
time to time for the release of certain prisoners on bail on
their executing personal bonds for appearance without any
monetary obligations. A detailed order was passed on
February 12, 1979 by a Division Bench of this Court on a
habeas corpus petition filed in regard to the state of
affairs in Bihar. This was followed by orders passed from
time to time which have been reported as "Re: Hussainara
Khatoon & Ors." Guidelines have been laid down in these
orders in regard to the release of under-trials who are
found to be languishing in jails for want of expeditious
disposal of pending cases. Now Criminal Miscellaneous
Petition No.5660 of 1993 has been filed seeking certain
general orders on the basis of guidelines culled out from
the said orders, namely, for undertaking an inquiry in
regard to the question of setting up of additional courts in
every State, providing investigating agencies with more
experts, simplifying the procedure for sanction of
prosecution, strict compliance with the provision of Section
167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, circulation of
guidelines to the Courts in States and revision of
categories of under-trials in various jails in the State of
Bihar.
Since this Court has already laid down the guidelines
by orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and
in subsequent orders passed in different cases since then,
we do not consider it necessary to restate the guidelines
periodically because the enforcement of the guidelines by
the subordinate courts functioning in different States
should now be the responsibility of the different High
Courts to which they are subordinate. General orders for
release of under-trials without reference to specific fact-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
situations in different cases may prove to be hazardous.
While there can be no doubt that under-trial prisoners
should not languish in jails on account of refusal to
enlarge them on bail for want of their capacity to furnish
bail with monetary obligations, these are matters which have
to be dealt with on case to case basis keeping in mind the
guidelines laid down by this Court in the orders passed in
this writ petition and in subsequent cases from time to
time. Sympathy for the under-trials who are in jail for long
terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced
having regard to the impact of crime, more particularly,
serious crime, on society and these considerations have to
be weighed having regard to the fact-situations in pending
cases. While there can be no doubt that trials of those
accused of crimes should be disposed of as early as
possible, general orders in regard to judge-strength of
subordinate judiciary in each State must be attended to, and
its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the concerned
State. We share the sympathetic concern of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that under-trials should not
languish in jails for long spells merely on account of their
inability to meet monetary obligations. We are, however, of
the view that such monitoring can be done more effectively
by the High Courts since it would be easy for that Court to
collect and collate the statistical information in that
behalf, apply the broad guidelines already issued and deal
with the situation as it emerges from the status reports
presented to it. The role of the High Court is to ensure
that the guidelines issued by this Court are implemented in
letter and spirit. We think it would suffice if we request
the Chief Justices of the High Courts to undertake a review
of such cases in their States and give appropriate
directions where needed to ensure proper and effective
implementation of the guidelines. Instead of repeating the
general directions already issued, it would be sufficient to
remind the High Courts to ensure expeditious disposal of
cases. Withdrawal of cases from time to time may not always
be an appropriate and acceptable remedy, but what is
required is to evolve a mechanism which would enable early
disposal of cases. The High Court being on the spot would be
able to diagnose the ailment rather than merely deal with
the symptoms. We are, therefore, of the view that these
petitions have served their purposes and should stand
disposed of leaving the further implementation to the High
Courts.