Justice At A Snail’s Pace Is Not Just Ineffective But Farcical
· Free Press Journal
“Justice delayed is justice denied” is one of the most quoted principles of law. Yet there are occasions when delay makes justice not merely ineffective but almost farcical. The conviction of an 84-year-old Bihar man for a crime committed 34 years ago is one such case. The incident occurred in 1992. The chargesheet was filed in 1993. The verdict came only in 2026. During this period, four of the five accused died. Many witnesses also passed away. Only one accused survived long enough to hear the judgement. Frail and unable to walk unaided, he had to be supported by two persons as he left the court premises. The video of the octogenarian struggling to move went viral and prompted the intervention of the Supreme Court, which granted him bail. The question is not whether the man was guilty. The court has delivered its finding. The real question is why it took 34 years to do so.
Visit biznow.biz for more information.
A judicial system that requires more than three decades to decide a criminal case cannot escape scrutiny. Such delays undermine public faith in the rule of law. If punishment comes after a generation has passed, it loses much of its meaning. Criminologists have long argued that the certainty of punishment is a greater deterrent than its severity. A swift verdict sends a stronger message to society than a harsh sentence delivered decades later. The Bihar case is not an isolated example. Indian courts are burdened with an enormous backlog of cases. While judges often work under difficult conditions, the system itself is in urgent need of reform. Criminal trials should ordinarily be completed within a year or two of the alleged offence. Procedures must be simplified and technology used more effectively. During the Covid-19 pandemic, courts successfully adopted several innovations and dispensed with many unnecessary formalities. That spirit of reform should continue.
There is also a humanitarian dimension. What purpose is served by imprisoning an 84-year-old man who needs assistance even to walk? Society must be protected from dangerous offenders, but it is difficult to argue that a physically incapacitated octogenarian poses any significant threat. Granting him bail pending appeal is both sensible and humane. India has seen the tragic consequences of judicial delay before. The death of Jesuit priest and tribal rights activist Stan Swamy in custody, while awaiting trial, remains a painful reminder of how prolonged legal processes can become punishments in themselves. Delays also have political consequences. Serious criminal cases against influential public figures like a chief minister often remain unresolved for years, allowing them to continue in public office without judicial clarity. Justice must not only be done, it must be done in time. Otherwise, the courts risk delivering verdicts that satisfy procedure but fail the larger cause of justice.