Chhattisgarh HC Directs Trial Courts: Fix Concrete Dates for Evidence Recording to Speed Up Justice
Chhattisgarh HC Mandates Fixed Dates for Evidence

In a significant move to tackle the perennial problem of case delays, the Chhattisgarh High Court has issued a crucial directive to all trial courts across the state. The bench, comprising Justice Goutam Bhaduri and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal, has emphasized the urgent need for a systematic overhaul in how evidence is recorded.

The court observed that the current practice of granting long, fragmented adjournments between witness examination dates is a primary culprit behind the mounting backlog of cases. This stop-and-go approach not only prolongs litigation but also places an immense burden on witnesses and undermines the efficiency of the entire judicial process.

A New Mandate for Streamlined Proceedings

The High Court's order lays down a clear and actionable framework for trial court judges:

  • Fixed Schedules: Judges must now set specific, consecutive dates dedicated solely to recording the evidence of a witness.
  • Minimized Adjournments: The directive explicitly discourages granting long adjournments once the examination of a witness has begun.
  • Continuous Hearing: The goal is to ensure that witness testimony is completed in a continuous, time-bound manner, preventing cases from dragging on for years.

The Impact on Justice Delivery

This procedural shift is expected to have far-reaching benefits for the Indian legal system. For litigants, it translates to faster resolution of their cases, reducing both financial strain and emotional anxiety. Witnesses will benefit from not having to make repeated court appearances over extended periods.

Most importantly, this reform strengthens the core of justice delivery. A swift and continuous recording of evidence helps preserve the freshness and accuracy of testimony, ensuring that justice is not just done, but is seen to be done efficiently.

The Chhattisgarh High Court's directive serves as a powerful model for other states, highlighting that procedural efficiency is not merely an administrative concern but a fundamental aspect of upholding the right to a speedy trial.