“Heavens Wouldn’t Have Fallen”: Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Meerut Trial Court for Undue Haste Despite Pending Supreme Court Order
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has sharply criticised a trial court in Meerut for acting in undue haste and failing to wait for the copy of an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in a connected matter.
In unusually candid remarks, the High Court observed that had the additional sessions judge waited for a day or two to examine the Supreme Court’s order and proceed accordingly, “the heavens would not have fallen”.
Allowing a criminal revision petition filed by Hamid and two others, Justice Kshitij Shailendra made it clear that the High Court did not approve of the manner in which the trial court rushed through the proceedings.
The bench ultimately set aside the summons order issued by the Meerut court, holding that the approach adopted was neither judicious nor warranted in the given circumstances.
Background of the Case
The criminal revision petition was filed in September 2024 by three individuals—Hamid, Akram, and Danish—challenging a sessions court order dated August 17, 2024.
The impugned order had summoned them to face trial in a case registered in Meerut relating to the murder of two persons in May 2020.
Following the investigation, the police had removed the names of the three applicants from the chargesheet, citinga lack of sufficient material.
However, the prosecution later moved an application seeking their inclusion as accused in the trial. Accepting this plea, the trial court summoned the three, prompting them to approach the High Court in revision.
Allegation of Undue Haste
During the High Court proceedings, counsel for the petitioners argued that the trial court acted with unwarranted urgency despite being fully aware that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) arising out of the related matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
The SLP, counsel pointed out, was decided on August 14, 2024, but the order was uploaded on the Supreme Court’s website only on August 17.
Despite this, the Meerut trial court went ahead and passed the summoning order without waiting for the apex court’s ruling to be available and examined.
This, the petitioners contended, amounted to a serious procedural lapse and reflected a mechanical approach to the administration of justice.
Prosecution’s Stand
Opposing the plea, the prosecution argued that the case involved a “double murder” and that the names of the accused figured prominently in the main case.
It was contended that the removal of their names from the chargesheet based solely on statements of independent witnesses was erroneous.
The prosecution maintained that the accused had directly fired the shots and, therefore, deserved to be prosecuted.
High Court’s Observations
In its detailed 18-page judgment, the High Court noted that although an earlier order had directed the matter to be decided within 30 days, a brief delay of a day or two to await the Supreme Court’s decision would not have caused any prejudice.
On the contrary, such caution would have ensured judicial propriety and consistency.
The court expressed its clear displeasure at the trial court’s conduct, stating that the haste displayed was entirely avoidable. Justice Shailendra remarked that judicial discipline demands patience, particularly when a higher court’s decision is awaited in a connected matter.
Faith in the Justice System
In a broader reflection on judicial responsibility, the High Court observed in its order dated December 19 that courts must refrain from actions that erode public confidence in the justice delivery system.
It cautioned that unnecessary haste and disregard for pending proceedings before higher courts could undermine faith in what it described as a “sacred institution”.
By setting aside the summons and allowing the criminal revision, the High Court sent a strong message on the need for judicial restraint, procedural fairness, and adherence to hierarchy within the judicial system.
#AllahabadHighCourt #JudicialDiscipline #TrialCourtHaste #SupremeCourt #CriminalRevision #RuleOfLaw #PublicFaithInJudiciary #MeerutCase
