Prolonged adjournments violate the accused’s fundamental right to a speedy trial.

The applicant, appearing in person, filed a review application under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking review of the order dated 10 June 2024 in W.P. No.24511 of 2018.

He alleged unfair investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam, and the registration of false criminal cases against him.

During the proceedings, the Court directed the police authorities to ensure a fair investigation and summoned the Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, who reported that final reports had been filed and that steps were being taken to ensure a fair trial.

The Registrar (Judicial)’s report disclosed prolonged proceedings in P.R.C. No.18 of 2023 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam, including an adjournment for one year.

The applicant also asserted that he was under threat and that attempts had been made to attack him.

1. Whether the criminal proceedings concerning the applicant had been unduly delayed in a manner inconsistent with his constitutional right to a speedy and fair trial.

2. Whether directions should be issued to expedite the criminal proceedings and ensure fair investigation and trial.

3. Whether police protection should be continued or provided to the applicant in view of his alleged threats to life and safety.

4. Whether the circumstances warranted intervention in the review proceedings instituted under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing review jurisdiction.

It reiterated the constitutional and procedural principle that speedy trial in criminal cases is a fundamental right and that unnecessary or prolonged adjournments are impermissible.

The Court held that the normal rule is to conduct proceedings expeditiously, while adjournment is an exception to be granted only for genuine reasons; prolonged adjournments on flimsy grounds undermine fair trial and public confidence in the administration of justice.

It further recognised the duty of investigating and prosecuting authorities to conduct investigations fairly and to place cases before the competent court in accordance with law.

The Court found that the Registrar (Judicial)’s report demonstrated substantial and unjustified delay in the applicant’s criminal proceedings, particularly because the trial court had adjourned the matter for one year.

Applying the principle that speedy trial is a fundamental right and that long adjournments are contrary to criminal law jurisprudence, the Court directed the trial court to advance the hearing date, take steps for early committal, and complete the proceedings within a reasonable time.

Although the applicant alleged false cases and unfair investigation, the Court did not determine the truth of those allegations; instead, it directed the police to investigate and prosecute all cases fairly and expeditiously.

In light of the applicant’s assertion of threats, and the State’s submission that protection had already been provided, the Court directed that adequate police protection should continue whenever required.

It directed the concerned trial court to expedite the criminal cases involving the applicant, advance the hearing date, and take necessary steps for early committal and speedy trial.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vedaranyam, was directed to furnish the order to the trial court.

The Superintendent of Police, Nagapattinam, was directed to provide adequate police protection to the applicant whenever required, with existing protection to continue if already in force.