SC grants bail to 75-yr-old man convicted after 40-year trial in rape & murder case
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has granted bail to a 75-year-old man, who was convicted in a 1983 rape and murder case, while taking note that it took the trial 40 years to conclude.
Noting the "peculiar feature" of the case, the apex court asked the Calcutta High Court to give "out of turn priority" to the disposal of the man's appeal against his conviction.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal said, normally, the top court should not issue a direction to a constitutional court or any other court to fix a schedule to decide a case.
"However, this case has a peculiar feature that the trial has taken forty years to conclude. We, therefore, request the high court to give out of turn priority to the disposal of the appeal in accordance with law," the bench said in its order passed on September 25.
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by the man challenging the May 17 order of the high court which had rejected his prayer for bail.
While noting that the appellant was the maternal uncle of the victim, the high court had said in view of the material on record and the gravity of the offence, "we do not consider it appropriate to suspend the sentence of the appellant".
In its order, the high court had noted that the case involves brutal rape and murder of a girl who was found strangulated in a room.
The top court, while pronouncing its order, said the incident had taken place in 1983 and there are "reasons and reasons why the trial was delayed".
"The trial came to an end with the order of conviction of the appellant on April 21, 2023. The appellant was throughout on bail. The present age of the appellant is about 75 years. The appeal before the high court has been admitted for final hearing," it said.
The bench said considering the delay in disposal of the trial, the fact that the occurrence was of 1983 and the present age of the appellant, "he deserves to be enlarged on bail, pending the final disposal of the appeal before the high court on appropriate stringent terms and conditions".
Setting aside the May 17 order of the high court, the apex court requested it to fix appropriate stringent terms and conditions on which the appellant shall be enlarged on bail pending the final disposal of his appeal.
After the bench was informed that the appellant is a member of the Bar, it said he was expected to ensure that the apex court's order was scrupulously implemented and appeal is disposed of expeditiously.
"Therefore, we direct that the appellant shall not seek adjournments on any unreasonable grounds and shall cooperate with the high court for early disposal of the appeal," the bench said.
It said if the hearing of the appeal is delayed on account of default on the part of the appellant, it will be open for the state to apply to the high court for cancellation of bail.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
