Noting it as warranted under exceptional circumstances, the Supreme Court has said timelines are imposed by the courts in completion of the investigation by probe agencies “reactively” and not “prophylactically” where inordinate delay could cause prejudice.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh made the remarks while examining an order of the Allahabad High Court, which has given 90 days to the UP police to complete the probe and granted protection to the accused from any coercive action in case of procurement of arms licence by fabricating documents.“In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically,” the bench said while analysing previous decisions of the apex court and noted that “courts have consistently recognized that directing a timebound investigation must remain the exception rather than the norm”.
“It is in this constitutional setting that courts have, in appropriate cases, intervened where delay itself begins to cause prejudice,” the top court said while setting aside the order of the high court.The bench said that timelines are not drawn by the court to be followed by the investigators/the executive right from the beginning, “for that would clearly amount to stepping on the toes of the latter.”It said timelines are therefore imposed at a point where not doing so would have adverse consequences, i.e., there is material on record demonstrating undue delays, stagnation, or the like. In sum, timelines are imposed reactively and not prophylactically.
“As such, the timelines imposed by the high court need to be interfered with and set aside. Ordered accordingly,” it had ordered.
Elaborating further, the bench added that investigation is a product of many factors and happenings apart from the crime itself, which lend to it a sense of uncertainty, and the law therefore accords investigating agencies a reasonable degree of latitude.
Justice Karol, who penned the December 19 verdict on behalf of the bench, said that where there is evident stagnation, unexplained inaction, or a pattern of delay that cannot be justified by the nature or complexity of the case, judicial directions fixing timelines have been considered warranted.
The bench said courts have also been mindful of the impact of prolonged investigation on personal liberty, particularly where coercive measures or extended custody are involved.“In such cases, fixing timelines is viewed not as an intrusion into the investigative domain, but as a safeguard against inertia and arbitrariness,” the top court said while pointing out that it has also been cautioned against routine or mechanical directions for time-bound investigation.The bench said, “What emerges, therefore, is a balanced approach: courts respect the practical realities of investigation, yet intervene where delay itself threatens fairness, liberty, or the integrity of the criminal justice process.”
Follow us
