The Supreme Court recently invoked Article 139A of the Constitution to withdraw three criminal revision petitions from the Allahabad High Court after the High Court failed to deliver judgments despite reserving them in February 2020.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order. The Court noted that the long delay stalled the trial arising from a 1994 murder case.
Delay In Pronouncing Judgment
The three matters include Criminal Revision No. 1678 of 2012, Criminal Revision No. 1874 of 2012, and Criminal Revision No. 1900 of 2012.
The Allahabad High Court heard the revisions and reserved judgment on February 5, 2020. However, the Court has not delivered the verdict so far. The case status showed that the matters were last listed on February 4, 2026, after which they were adjourned again.
The Supreme Court observed that the stay order in the revisions prevented the Trial Court from continuing the proceedings. As a result, the criminal trial connected to the incident dated May 30, 1994 remained stalled for decades.
The Bench emphasised that courts normally avoid using Article 139A jurisdiction in an Article 32 petition. However, the present case required intervention because the delay directly affected the petitioner’s right to speedy justice.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Court held that the issue went beyond the dispute between the parties.
According to the Bench, prolonged delays in criminal trials can cause serious and irreversible prejudice. Such delays also affect the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The Court observed that the case raised broader questions. These include timely pronouncement of judgments after hearings conclude, enforcement of Supreme Court directions, and the integrity of criminal proceedings in serious offences.
For these reasons, the Bench held that Article 139A(1) provides the appropriate constitutional mechanism to withdraw the cases.
The Court stated that withdrawing the revisions would ensure that the adjudicatory process does not become ineffective due to prolonged pendency. It also noted that such transfer would help implement the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment dated July 15, 2024 in an effective and time-bound manner.
Directions Issued By The Court
The Supreme Court directed that the three criminal revision petitions be withdrawn from the Allahabad High Court and tagged with the present writ petition.
The Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court must transmit the records to the Supreme Court within three weeks.
After receiving the records, the Registry of the Supreme Court will place all petitions before the Court after obtaining appropriate orders from the Chief Justice of India.
Background Of The Dispute
The writ petition under Article 32 was filed by the victim’s legal heir seeking enforcement of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner complained that the Allahabad High Court reserved judgment on February 5, 2020, but has not delivered the verdict. The petition also sought implementation of the Supreme Court judgment dated July 15, 2024, which required the High Court to re-evaluate the revision concerning withdrawal of charges against one accused.
FIR And Criminal Proceedings
An FIR was lodged in 1995 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against nine accused persons.
Authorities registered another case in 2004 against an accused who had been absconding earlier.
In 2008, the Uttar Pradesh Government proposed withdrawal of charges against Chhotey Singh.
Later, in 2012, the government filed an application under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking withdrawal of prosecution. The application was subsequently amended to request withdrawal against all accused persons.
Trial Court Order And Revisions
The Trial Court, by order dated May 19, 2012, allowed withdrawal of prosecution against Chhotey Singh. However, the court refused withdrawal against the remaining accused. As a result, the trial against them continued.
Three accused challenged the refusal through criminal revision petitions. At the same time, the victim’s legal heirs challenged the order allowing withdrawal of charges against Chhotey Singh.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the trial court’s decision permitting withdrawal against Chhotey Singh.
Supreme Court’s 2024 Order
The victim’s legal heirs then approached the Supreme Court. By an order dated July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and directed it to re-evaluate the matter.
After that order, the petitioners filed a supplementary affidavit before the Allahabad High Court. They placed the Supreme Court judgment on record and filed several listing applications.
They also sent a letter to the Registrar General of the High Court requesting listing of the case.
The High Court listed the matter on February 4, 2026, but adjourned it again.
Fresh Petition Before Supreme Court
Due to repeated adjournments, the victim’s legal heirs approached the Supreme Court again.
They argued that the pending revisions had brought the trial to a complete standstill. The petition sought time-bound disposal of the revisions and compliance with the July 15, 2024 judgment.
Explaining the scope of Article 139A(1), the Bench noted that the provision enables the Supreme Court to withdraw cases from High Courts when substantial questions of law of general importance arise.
The Court also stated that the remaining revision petitions before the High Court could not be decided without implementing the legal and constitutional findings contained in the July 15, 2024 judgment.
Case: JAIDEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Appearances:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR; Mr. Arun Kumar Nagar, Adv.; Mr. Manohar Naagar, Adv.; Mr. Roop Chaudhary, Adv.; Ms. Savita, Adv.
