In a landmark order that highlights systemic flaws in India’s judicial process, the Supreme Court has taken strong exception to a staggering 23-year delay in the Rajasthan High Court over a criminal revision petition in a dowry death case. The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan, dismissed the petitioners’ special leave petition (SLP) but turned the spotlight on the prolonged pendency, calling it “very disturbing” and “painful.”
The Case Background
The case dates back to November 2000, when Deepa married Vijay Kumar (Petitioner No. 1). Tragically, she died under mysterious circumstances at her matrimonial home on December 31, 2001—within a year of marriage. Her brother, Girish Goyal, filed an FIR in January 2002 at Nazirabad City Police Station, Ajmer, alleging harassment for dowry and murder by poisoning under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 304B (dowry death) of the IPC.
The police filed a charge sheet against seven accused, including Deepa’s husband, in-laws, and relatives. The trial court framed charges in November 2002, but the accused challenged this via a criminal revision petition in the Rajasthan High Court in January 2003. The High Court granted a stay on the trial in February 2003, and the matter languished for over two decades.
It was only in August 2023—after 20 years—that the petition was heard by a single judge. After further hearings and a rehearing, the High Court dismissed it on August 1, 2025, leading to the SLP in the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Scathing Observations
Dismissing the SLP outright, the apex court found no error in the High Court’s order. However, it refused to let the delay slide. “Who is responsible, only a detailed inquiry at our end will decide,” the bench noted, expressing perturbation over why a sensitive case involving dowry death wasn’t prioritized despite an interim stay halting the trial.
The court has directed the Rajasthan High Court’s Registrar General to submit the entire record, including order sheets, via special messenger. It seeks data on criminal revision petitions filed and disposed of from 2001 to 2026, how many times this specific petition was listed, and the state’s efforts as the prosecuting agency to expedite it.
Criticizing the state’s inaction during the 23-year period, the bench questioned why Rajasthan remained silent while the trial stalled. “If criminal trials in such serious offences remain pending for years together on the strength of interim orders passed by the High Courts, it would lead to nothing but mockery of justice,” the order stated.
Broader Implications and Directives
Labeling the case an “eye-opener” for all High Courts, the Supreme Court emphasized that justice must serve victims and their families, not just the accused. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” it quoted, urging Chief Justices nationwide to ensure petitions with interim stays in heinous crimes—such as murder, dowry death, and rape—are heard expeditiously.
The matter is listed as part-heard on January 15, 2026, with copies of the order sent to all High Court Registrar Generals for placement before their Chief Justices. The petitioners’ counsel has been asked to assist in the interest of justice.
This order comes amid growing concerns over judicial backlogs in India, where millions of cases pend, often denying timely closure to victims. Experts hail it as a step toward accountability, but implementation will be key to reforming the system.
Lawcutor 