In a recent development at the Allahabad High Court, a glaring instance of justice delayed has prompted the Court to demand explanations from the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the Special Judge (NI Act). The case in question, Mahmood Ahmad Siddiqui v. The Court Special Judge NI Act, Lko. And Another, has been languishing in the legal system since 2014, raising serious concerns about the efficiency of the judicial process.
Justice Shamim Ahmed minced no words in expressing the Court’s frustration with the prolonged proceedings. Despite clear directives from the High Court for expeditious disposal, the Special Judge resorted to delay tactics, offering lengthy adjournments and displaying what the Court described as a “casual” approach.
The Court’s ire was not solely directed at the Special Judge; it also criticized the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, for neglecting to monitor the case’s progress diligently. Even a transfer application, seeking to move the case to another court within the district, was summarily rejected, adding to the litany of concerns regarding the handling of the matter.
The petitioner’s counsel highlighted the repeated directives issued by the High Court, dating back to 2020, urging the trial court to decide the case within a stipulated timeframe. Despite these directives, the case remained unresolved, prompting further intervention from the High Court in 2023.
The State, recognizing the gravity of the situation, acknowledged that trial court judges were not adhering to the guidelines set by higher courts, underscoring the systemic challenges within the judiciary.
In light of these failures to comply with previous orders, the High Court has summoned explanations from the concerned judicial officers, setting a deadline for their responses. Both the District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow, and the Special Judge (NI Act) are required to account for the delays and justify their actions before May 29.
As the wheels of justice turn slowly, Advocate Avinash Pandey, representing the petitioner, continues to advocate for timely resolution, while Advocate Ashok Kumar Singh represents the State’s interests in addressing these systemic deficiencies.
In a system built on the promise of justice for all, the call for accountability resonates loudly as litigants await the resolution they rightly deserve.
Mahmood_Ahmad_Siddiqui_vs__The_Court_Special_Judge_N_I__Act__Lko__And_Another
