Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over the discontinuation of the practice of holding trials on a day-to-day basis in important or sensitive cases, observing that a tradition that existed three decades ago has now been “given a complete go-by”.

“We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice,” the bench observed, stressing that speedy and continuous trial hearings are essential for justice delivery, particularly in cases involving grave social or political ramifications.

The Court directed that all High Courts should constitute Committees to deliberate on how the practice of day-to-day trial can be revived and implemented effectively in their respective district judiciaries.

A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan observed :

"The practice of conducting trials on a day to day basis more particularly in important or sensitive cases as was the tradition about thirty years ago has been given a complete go-by. We sincerely believe that it is high time that the courts revert to that practice. For the purpose of reverting to the old practice, it is necessary to understand the current social, political and administrative scenario including the way the Police are functioning. All the High Courts need to constitute a Committee to discuss this issue very seriously for the benefit of their respective district judiciaries."

The bench observed that one of the significant factors contributing to delays in the justice system is the discretionary practice of noncontinuous criminal trials, where evidence is heard by the court in piecemeal fashion, with cases effectively spread out over the course of many months or even years.

"While limited judicial or court resources and a shortage of available court time due to the volume of cases are often cited for the use of this discretionary practice, the costs of non-continuous trials to both parties and to the justice system as a whole can far outweigh the perceived benefits," the Court observed.

High Court Chief Justices asked to issue a circular

The judgment suggested that the High Court Chief Justices on their administrative side may issue a circular for the district judiciary as follows :

[1] The proceedings in every inquiry or trial shall be held expeditiously.

[2] When the stage of examination of witnesses starts such examination shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in the attendance have been examined except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[3] When the witnesses are in attendance before the Court no adjournment or postponement shall be granted without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing.

[4] The Court should not grant the adjournment to suit the convenience of the advocate concerned except on very exceptional grounds like bereavement in the family and similar exceptional reasons duly supported by memo. Be it noted that the said inconvenience of an advocate is not a “Special Reason” for the purpose of bypassing the immunity of Section 309 of the Cr.P.C.

[5] In case of non-cooperation of accused or his counsel, the following shall be kept in mind:

a. In case of non-cooperation of the counsel, the Court shall satisfy itself whether the non- cooperation is in active collusion with the accused to delay the trial. If it is so satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing, it may, if the accused is on bail, put the accused on notice to show cause why the bail cannot be cancelled.

b. In cases where the accused is not in collusion with lawyer and it is the lawyer who is not cooperating with the trial, the Court may for reason to be recorded, appoint an amicus curiae for the accused and fix a date for proceeding with cross-examination/trial.

c. The Court may also in appropriate cases impose cost on the accused commensurate with the loss suffered by the witness including the expenses to attend the court.

d. In case when the accused is absent and the witness is present for examination, in that case the Court can cancel the bail of accused if he is on bail. (Unless an application is made on his behalf seeking permission for his counsel to proceed to examine the witness present even in his absence, provided the accused gives an undertaking in writing that, he would not dispute, his identity as a particular accused in 20 the case.)

[6] The Presiding Officer of each Court may evolve the system for framing a schedule of constructive working days for examination of witnesses in each case, well in advance, after ascertaining the convenience of counsel on both sides.

[7] The summons or process could be handed over to the Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case to cause them to be served on the witnesses, as per schedule fixed by the Court.

The judgment heavily relied on legal precedent and the mandate of Section 309 Cr.P.C. (now Section 346 of the BNSS, 2023), which requires proceedings to be continued "from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined". For offenses like rape, the inquiry or trial should ideally be completed within two months from the date of filing the charge sheet.

The Court cited multiple past judgments stressing that speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench noted its pain that it is a "common practice and regular occurrence" for trial courts to flout the day-to-day mandate.

The Court was considering an application filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) plea to cancel the bail of on Mir Usman @ Ara @ Mir Usman Ali, an accused in a rape case related to the 2021 West Bengal post-poll violence.

The bench, after hearing Archana Pathak Dave, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) for the CBI, and Anjan Datta, counsel for the respondent, stated that it was "not persuaded to set aside the bail" given that the accused had been out of custody for almost a year. However, the Court made it clear that its primary goal was to ensure the trial proceeds expeditiously, examining only "important witnesses".

The Court expressed "grave concern" and confusion regarding the status of the trial after it was informed that the victim had stepped into the witness box but her further examination was adjourned until December 18, 2025. The court had earlier demanded an explanation from the trial court, warning that such a four-month adjournment could "unwittingly facilitate the accused to tamper with the prosecution witnesses".

In compliance with the order dated September 8, 2025, the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st -cum-Special Court, Tamluk, Distt. Purba Medinipur, submitted a Status Report on September 11, 2025.

The Trial Court Judge explained that the recording of the victim's evidence, scheduled for August 25, 2025, had to be adjourned because the victim suddenly fell ill while in the witness box. The subsequent long adjournment to December 18, 2025, was attributed to the court's exceptionally heavy caseload, including 4,731 pending cases as of August 1, 2025, involving sessions, NDPS, SC/ST, Prevention of Corruption, and various civil cases. The judge noted the need to prioritize custody trial cases and comply with arrear reduction orders from the Calcutta High Court, alongside a scheduled month-long closure for the Durga Puja Festival (September 27, 2025, to October 23, 2025).

The Court noted that the date of examination has been now preponed to October 24, 2025. The Public Prosecutor was directed to ensure that the victim remains present for the further cross-examination.

Once the oral evidence of the victim is completed, the Trial Court should make all possible endeavour to see that the other witnesses are examined at the earliest and the trial is completed with judgment by 31-12-2025, the Court directed,

The Court also directed that the copy of the judgment be forwarded to all High Court Chief Justices.

Case : THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v. MIR USMAN @ ARA @ MIR USMAN ALI

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 949

Click here to read the judgment