SC Calls for Revival of Day-to-Day Trials to Combat Systemic Delays

A Call to Return to Continuous Hearings

The Supreme Court of India, in a recent order, has directed all High Courts to explore mechanisms to revive the long-abandoned practice of day-to-day trials in “sensitive” cases. A bench led by Justices of the Supreme Court expressed deep concern that the tradition of continuous hearings, once the norm in criminal trials, has gradually eroded over decades. Instead, courts have slipped into a culture of intermittent adjournments, stretching hearings over months or even years.

The Court observed that such practices undermine both the efficiency of the justice delivery system and public confidence in judicial outcomes. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” the bench reminded, underlining that a justice system that cannot deliver timely verdicts loses credibility among citizens. To remedy this systemic malaise, the Supreme Court instructed Chief Justices of all High Courts to constitute committees tasked with devising concrete plans to reinstate daily hearings in matters of significant public interest or grave social consequences.

Why Day-to-Day Trials Matter

Day-to-day trials refer to the practice where once a case begins, hearings continue on a daily basis until all evidence is recorded and arguments concluded. This approach ensures minimal disruption, prevents witnesses from turning hostile due to long gaps, and reduces opportunities for manipulation.

In the past, especially under colonial criminal procedure codes, this practice was considered standard. Courts recognized that swift recording of testimony and quick adjudication were critical in maintaining the integrity of evidence. However, over the years, a mix of rising case backlogs, insufficient judicial resources, and a culture of frequent adjournments allowed this discipline to fade.

The Supreme Court’s intervention is therefore not merely procedural but structural—it calls for reasserting a principle that lies at the heart of criminal justice: timely disposal as an inseparable element of fairness.

A System Strained by Delays

The timing of the Court’s concern is significant. As of 2025, India faces one of the highest backlogs in judicial history, with over 4.5 crore cases pending across all levels of the judiciary. Criminal cases, particularly those involving serious offences like rape, murder, terrorism, or large-scale corruption, often stretch over decades.

These delays create multiple problems:

• For Victims: Endless hearings cause retraumatization and erode faith in the possibility of justice.

• For Accused: Prolonged trials amount to punishment without conviction, infringing upon constitutional guarantees of speedy trial.

• For Society: Delay in verdicts in cases of public importance undermines deterrence, creates social unrest, and erodes the legitimacy of the judiciary itself.

By pushing for day-to-day trials in sensitive cases, the Supreme Court has acknowledged these cumulative harms and sought to reintroduce discipline into a system suffering from chronic delay.

Sensitive Cases: What Falls Under the Category?

The Court did not provide an exhaustive definition of “sensitive” cases but hinted that the category includes those with serious social impact. Traditionally, courts have treated cases of sexual violence, terrorism, communal riots, corruption involving public servants, and crimes against vulnerable populations as sensitive.

Committees formed by High Courts will now need to deliberate on criteria to identify such matters. The expectation is that once designated as sensitive, these cases will be insulated from routine adjournments and disposed of on priority through continuous hearings.

This raises further questions: Will the classification be uniform across states or tailored to local realities? Will the system risk creating hierarchies among cases, leaving ordinary litigants behind? These challenges will have to be balanced by High Courts while implementing the directive.

Judicial Precedent and Constitutional Mandate

The idea of speedy trial is not new to Indian jurisprudence. In the landmark Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court read the right to a speedy trial into Article 21 of the Constitution, making it a fundamental right. Several subsequent cases, including Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) and Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar (1981), reinforced this obligation.

Yet, despite these rulings, the practical implementation of speedy trial has remained elusive. Adjournments, procedural loopholes, and resource constraints have weakened the principle in practice. By specifically reviving the mechanism of day-to-day trials, the present bench appears to be strengthening the jurisprudence around Article 21, offering a practical procedural model rather than merely restating the right.

Institutional Responsibilities

The Supreme Court’s directive to form committees within High Courts is more than symbolic. It places institutional responsibility on the judiciary itself, rather than waiting for legislative or executive reform. These committees will be expected to:

• Identify categories of sensitive cases.

• Frame administrative guidelines for judges to prioritize continuous hearings.

• Ensure logistical support, such as witness scheduling and resource allocation, to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

• Monitor implementation and report compliance.

This approach is a form of judicial self-reform. While the judiciary has often called upon the legislature and executive to address delays, this order places the burden squarely within the judicial system’s own administrative powers.

Challenges in Implementation

While the Court’s intent is laudable, implementation will be difficult. Several structural hurdles remain:

1. Judicial Vacancies: Nearly one-third of posts in High Courts and lower courts remain vacant, leaving existing judges overloaded.

2. Infrastructure Deficits: Many trial courts lack basic digital case management systems or adequate courtroom facilities.

3. Bar Resistance: Lawyers often seek adjournments for tactical reasons; enforcing daily trials will require cooperation from the Bar Councils.

4. Witness Availability: In many cases, witnesses travel long distances and have professional or personal constraints that make daily appearances difficult.

Addressing these issues will require coordinated effort between the judiciary, executive, and the legal profession.

Potential Impact on Criminal Justice

If successfully implemented, the revival of day-to-day trials could reshape the criminal justice landscape:

• Enhanced Credibility: Quick resolutions in high-profile cases will restore faith in judicial institutions.

• Deterrence: Swift punishment in cases of grave crimes will have a stronger deterrent effect.

• Reduced Hostility: Witnesses are less likely to turn hostile when testimony is recorded continuously without long gaps.

• System Efficiency: While initially focused on sensitive cases, the model could set a precedent for broader trial reforms.

However, care must be taken that prioritizing sensitive cases does not further marginalize ordinary litigants whose matters may be relegated down the queue. The balance between urgency and universality will define the success of this reform.

Looking Ahead: A Cultural Shift in Courtrooms

The Supreme Court’s call is not just an administrative directive but a push for cultural transformation within the legal community. Courts, lawyers, and litigants alike have become accustomed to adjournments as a routine part of proceedings. Reversing this culture requires:

• Judges to exercise firmer control over their dockets.

• Lawyers to accept professional responsibility in avoiding frivolous delays.

• Litigants to expect and demand quicker adjudication.

Ultimately, the move to reinstate day-to-day trials reaffirms a core principle: justice must be not only done but done without undue delay. Whether this directive marks the beginning of systemic reform or remains another unimplemented ideal will depend on the seriousness with which High Courts embrace the responsibility.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s directive to revive day-to-day trials in sensitive cases is both a reminder and a roadmap. It reminds us that the right to a speedy trial, firmly anchored in constitutional jurisprudence, has been undermined by decades of delay. At the same time, it provides a roadmap—through High Court committees and daily hearings—for how the judiciary might reclaim its lost credibility.

In a country where the criminal justice system is often criticized for its lethargy, this intervention may well mark the beginning of a renewed commitment to timely justice. The challenge now lies in turning this principle into practice.