Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Jasmeet Singh Commutes Sentence Citing 40-Year Delay as Violation of Right to Speedy Trial. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the matter of Surendra Kumar v. CBI (2025). 

What was the Background of Surendra Kumar v. CBI (2025) Case ? 

• Surendra Kumar, employed as Chief Marketing Manager of the State Trading Corporation of India (STC), allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs. 15,000 from Abdul Karim Hamid of M/s Abdul Hamid and Co. in January 1984 for placing a dried fish supply order of 140 tonnes with his firm. 
• The complainant Abdul Karim Hamid approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 4th January 1984 and lodged a formal complaint, leading to the registration of a case under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 
• The CBI conducted a trap operation at Hotel Kanishka where Kumar was apprehended with Rs. 7,500 in phenolphthalein-treated currency notes, and subsequent sodium carbonate solution test on his hands turned pink, confirming contact with the treated notes. 
• Kumar was arrested on 4th January 1984 and the CBI filed a chargesheet against him for offences under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. 
• After examining 13 witnesses during the trial, Kumar was convicted on 21st October 2002 and sentenced on 24th October 2002 to concurrent terms of two years rigorous imprisonment for IPC Section 161 and three years rigorous imprisonment for Prevention of Corruption Act offences, along with fines of Rs. 7,500 each. 
• Kumar filed an appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and remained on bail throughout the trial and appeal proceedings, having been in custody for only one day. 
• The appeal remained pending for over 22 years before its final disposal in 2025, raising significant concerns about violation of the right to speedy trial in the criminal justice system. 
• The case demonstrates the procedural complexities and systemic delays in corruption cases, where despite successful trap operations and conviction, the appellate process extended for more than two decades, potentially affecting the administration of justice and the rights of the accused. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court noted that Kumar had initially advanced arguments on the merits but subsequently gave up his challenge to conviction and restricted his arguments to seeking reduction of sentence quantum, acknowledging that he was not challenging the judgment of conviction dated 21st October 2002. 
• The Court emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, sentencing is not merely a mechanical exercise but involves careful balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors, and the objective of sentencing must be a combination of deterrence and rehabilitation which must be worked out on individual and case-to-case basis. 
• The Court observed that the incident took place on 4th January 1984 and proceedings had been continuing for over four decades, with the trial taking nearly 19 years to conclude and the appeal remaining pending for more than 22 years, noting that such inordinate delay is plainly at odds with the constitutional mandate of a speedy trial envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court noted that the 'Sword of Damocles' and uncertainty regarding the fate of Kumar's case had persisted for nearly 40 years, which by itself constituted a mitigating factor, and such prolonged uncertainty and delay in judicial proceedings had violated Kumar's fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court observed that a vital mitigating factor was Kumar's advanced age of 90 years, coupled with his suffering from serious health ailments, making him highly vulnerable to the physical and psychological impact of incarceration, and any imprisonment would risk causing irreversible harm and would defeat the very objective of sentence mitigation. 
• The Court noted that Kumar was a senior officer with STC who had already suffered incarceration for one day, had not challenged his conviction, had no criminal antecedents prior to the offence, had already deposited the fine of Rs. 15,000, and had diligently participated in the trial without causing any delay or disruption throughout the lengthy legal proceedings. 
• The Court observed that considering the mitigating circumstances, including Kumar's advanced age, deteriorating health condition, inordinate delay in proceedings, clean antecedents, and the fact that he had already served one day in custody, this was a fit case for reducing the quantum of sentence under the proviso to Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ultimately reducing Kumar's sentence to the time already served, demonstrating judicial compassion balanced with legal propriety. 

What is Commutation of Sentence and Violation of Right to Speedy Trial? 

Commutation of Sentence: 

• Section 5 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) establishes the foundational provision for commutation of sentence, empowering the "Appropriate Government" to commute punishment under the Sanhita to any other punishment without requiring the consent of the offender, and this commutation power must be exercised in accordance with Section 474 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). 
• The term "Appropriate Government" carries distinct meanings depending on the nature and jurisdiction of the offence, where the Central Government holds authority for death sentences or offences against Union laws, while State Governments exercise commutation powers for offences within their executive jurisdiction. 
• Section 474 of BNSS grants extensive powers to the Appropriate Government to commute sentences without requiring consent, including commuting death sentences to life imprisonment, life imprisonment to terms not less than seven years, and imprisonment of seven years or more to terms not less than three years. 
• Section 475 of BNSS establishes crucial restrictions ensuring that persons sentenced to life imprisonment for offences where death is a prescribed punishment, or whose death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment, must serve at least 14 years before being eligible for release. 
• The commutation framework includes concurrent jurisdictional powers where Section 476 of BNSS allows the Central Government to exercise commutation powers in death sentence cases alongside State Governments, while Section 477 requires coordination between different levels of government in sensitive commutation decisions. 
• The comprehensive commutation hierarchy allows for the reduction of rigorous imprisonment to simple imprisonment of any term, imprisonment for less than seven years to fine, and provides a structured framework for sentence reduction that balances mercy provisions with public safety considerations. 
• These statutory provisions reflect the legislative intent to maintain the federal structure of executive clemency powers while preventing jurisdictional conflicts and ensuring that serious offenders serve adequate prison terms commensurate with the gravity of their offences. 

Violation of Right to Speedy Trial 

• The right to speedy trial is an integral component of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses not merely the right to a fair trial but also the right to have that trial conducted without unreasonable delay that can cause irreparable harm including psychological trauma, social stigma, and financial hardship. 
• The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasized that unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings violates the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial, with landmark judgments establishing that such delays can constitute grounds for quashing criminal proceedings or reducing sentences due to the 'Sword of Damocles' effect of prolonged litigation. 
• Unreasonable delay in criminal proceedings is determined by examining multiple factors including the length of delay, reasons for delay, prejudice to the accused, and the overall impact on the administration of justice, with delays caused by prosecutorial negligence or administrative inefficiency being viewed more seriously than those caused by legitimate procedural complexities. 
• Courts consider whether the accused has been prejudiced by the delay through loss of evidence, fading of witness memory, or personal hardship including health deterioration, financial loss, or social consequences, recognizing that prolonged criminal proceedings can cause continuous mental agony and uncertainty to the accused. 
• When courts identify violations of the right to speedy trial, they may grant various remedies including quashing of criminal proceedings, reduction of sentence, or directions to expedite the trial process, with the Supreme Court establishing that prolonged trial periods may be considered as significant mitigating factors in sentencing. 
• The enforcement of the right to speedy trial requires courts to balance the interests of justice, public safety, and individual rights, ensuring that the remedy does not compromise the integrity of the criminal justice system while adequately addressing the violation of constitutional rights. 
• The judicial approach recognizes that while the right to speedy trial is fundamental and cannot be used to escape legitimate prosecution, the remedy must be proportionate to the nature of the violation and the circumstances of the case, serving both the interests of the accused and the broader public interest in maintaining an efficient criminal justice system. 
• In extreme cases of delay, courts may consider the time already spent under the uncertainty of criminal proceedings as equivalent to punishment, justifying the reduction of sentence to the period already undergone, thereby acknowledging that the process of law should not become a punishment in itself.