The Gujarat high court issued a stern warning to judges in lower courts, saying that those who do not conduct speedy trials in criminal cases, should be prepared for departmental action.

Justice J B Pardiwala has expressed anguish at sluggish criminal proceedings and the leniency courts showed witnesses by granting them time only because the accused had secured bail. He said this is a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution that guarantees a speedy trial to an accused. He also observed that courts routinely flout the mandate of section 309 of the CrPC and the Supreme Court’s repeated directions for “expeditious trials”.

The HC cited the Magna Carta, which promised in 1215: “We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right.”

The high court quoted an HC circular issued in 2001, which mandated courts to conduct speedy trials. Justice Pardiwala noticed that this express instruction was not at all followed by trial courts. He directed the HC’s registrar general to issue a fresh circular with the addition that “non-compliance with the directions may lead to departmental action in accordance with law”.

This came after former Gujarat University vice-chancellor Parimal Trivedi demanded a speedy trial for the atrocity charges he faces for an alleged casteist slur against a lecturer, Pankaj Shrimali, in 2008. Trivedi complained to the HC that the prosecution has examined only six witnesses in six years. The deposition of the only eyewitness, Pradeep Prajapati, has not ended even after three years. Trivedi contended that Prajapati was absent on 16 occasions, resulting in a delay in the trial and causing great difficulties in his life and career.

After hearing the case, Justice Pardiwala said that Prajapati and Shrimali protracted the trial to cause undue hardship to Trivedi. “The attempt appears to be to keep the sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of the writ applicant. Although the strategy appears to be so apparent, the presiding officer is absolutely unmoved. I fail to understand what is the presiding officer doing in this case? Why so much of indulgence and liberty is given to the PW7 (Prajapati)? I fail to understand why the cross-examination of PW 7 has been adjourned for almost sixteen times till now? These are the few questions the presiding officer is expected to answer,” the HC said.