http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: HUSSAINARA KHATOON & OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR & OTHERSW I T HWRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/08/1995

BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) BENCH: AHMADI A.M. (CJ) HANSARIA B.L. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (5) 326        1995 SCALE  (4)633

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                        O R D E R      A large number of criminal writ petitions, many of them based on  letters, were  grouped together  as  petitions  by under-trial prisoners  and certain  orders were  passed from time to time for the release of certain prisoners on bail on their executing  personal bonds  for appearance  without any monetary  obligations.   A  detailed  order  was  passed  on February 12,  1979 by  a Division  Bench of  this Court on a habeas corpus  petition filed  in regard  to  the  state  of affairs in  Bihar. This  was followed  by orders passed from time to  time which  have been  reported as  "Re: Hussainara Khatoon &  Ors." Guidelines  have been  laid down  in  these orders in  regard to  the release  of under-trials  who  are found to  be languishing  in jails  for want  of expeditious disposal  of   pending  cases.  Now  Criminal  Miscellaneous Petition No.5660  of 1993  has been  filed  seeking  certain general orders  on the  basis of  guidelines culled out from the said  orders, namely,  for  undertaking  an  inquiry  in regard to the question of setting up of additional courts in every State,  providing  investigating  agencies  with  more experts,  simplifying   the  procedure   for   sanction   of prosecution, strict compliance with the provision of Section 167 of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  circulation  of guidelines  to   the  Courts   in  States  and  revision  of categories of  under-trials in various jails in the State of Bihar.      Since this  Court has  already laid down the guidelines by orders passed from time to time in this writ petition and in subsequent  orders passed  in different cases since then, we do  not consider  it necessary  to restate the guidelines periodically because  the enforcement  of the  guidelines by the  subordinate  courts  functioning  in  different  States should now  be the  responsibility  of  the  different  High Courts to  which they  are subordinate.  General orders  for release of  under-trials without reference to specific fact-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

situations in  different cases  may prove  to be  hazardous. While there  can be  no  doubt  that  under-trial  prisoners should not  languish in  jails  on  account  of  refusal  to enlarge them  on bail  for want of their capacity to furnish bail with monetary obligations, these are matters which have to be  dealt with  on case to case basis keeping in mind the guidelines laid  down by  this Court in the orders passed in this writ  petition and  in subsequent  cases from  time  to time. Sympathy for the under-trials who are in jail for long terms on account of the pendency of cases has to be balanced having regard  to the  impact of  crime, more  particularly, serious crime,  on society  and these considerations have to be weighed  having regard  to the fact-situations in pending cases. While  there can  be no  doubt that  trials of  those accused  of  crimes  should  be  disposed  of  as  early  as possible, general  orders in  regard  to  judge-strength  of subordinate judiciary in each State must be attended to, and its functioning overseen, by the High Court of the concerned State. We  share the  sympathetic  concern  of  the  learned counsel for  the petitioners  that under-trials  should  not languish in jails for long spells merely on account of their inability to  meet monetary obligations. We are, however, of the view  that such  monitoring can be done more effectively by the  High Courts since it would be easy for that Court to collect and  collate the  statistical  information  in  that behalf, apply  the broad  guidelines already issued and deal with the  situation as  it emerges  from the  status reports presented to  it. The  role of  the High  Court is to ensure that the  guidelines issued by this Court are implemented in letter and  spirit. We  think it would suffice if we request the Chief  Justices of the High Courts to undertake a review of  such   cases  in   their  States  and  give  appropriate directions where  needed  to  ensure  proper  and  effective implementation of  the guidelines.  Instead of repeating the general directions already issued, it would be sufficient to remind the  High Courts  to ensure  expeditious disposal  of cases. Withdrawal  of cases from time to time may not always be  an  appropriate  and  acceptable  remedy,  but  what  is required is  to evolve  a mechanism which would enable early disposal of cases. The High Court being on the spot would be able to  diagnose the  ailment rather  than merely deal with the symptoms.  We are,  therefore, of  the view  that  these petitions  have  served  their  purposes  and  should  stand disposed of  leaving the  further implementation to the High Courts.