Supreme Court Highlights Mental Toll of Prolonged Criminal Proceedings

Supreme Court's Stance on Delayed Justice

The Supreme Court has remarked that extending a criminal case for an unreasonable duration inflicts a form of suffering akin to mental imprisonment on the individual facing the proceedings.

Justices N.V. Anjaria and A.S. Chandurkar made this observation while reducing the sentence of a woman convicted in a corruption case to the duration she had already spent in jail. The court confirmed her conviction, noting that the incident occurred 22 years ago and that the woman is now 75 years old.

Court's Ruling on Penalty

Despite reducing her prison term, the court increased the fine imposed on her by an additional ₹25,000. On August 21, the bench stated, "Prolonging a criminal case unnecessarily is, in itself, a form of suffering. For an individual facing such proceedings, it is comparable to mental imprisonment."

Background of the Case

This ruling came in response to the woman's appeal against a decision made by the Madras High Court in August 2010, which upheld the order of the subordinate court.

The lower court had found the woman, who served as a central excise inspector, guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sentencing her to one year in prison. The prosecution alleged that she demanded an illegal bribe of ₹300 in September 2002.

Impact of Delayed Justice

The apex court emphasized that individuals appealing against their convictions spend their days in distress, waiting for the outcome of their trials. The bench noted, "In the current justice administration system, where proceedings often become unreasonably lengthy and unbearable, the passage of time causes mental anguish to the individual."