Supreme Court considers the suo moto case "IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS".

Sr Advs Siddharth Luthra and R Basant have submitted a draft rules on criminal practice.

The draft rules on criminal practice were submitted by the amicus curiae in March 2020.

https://t.co/wgbip9xefB
Luthra : On March 5, 2020, a report on draft criminal rules was submitted after a colloquium with High Courts.
Luthra : After the draft rules have been circulated, we have only received responses of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Allahabad and Delhi. As many as 20 High Courts have chosen not to respond.
CJI : We are thinking we will give High Courts to appear within 2 weeks. They may give suggestions to the draft rules or may accept the rules and give a statement regarding willingness to implement the rules in HC.
Luthra : Some HCs have expressed willingness to implement the draft rules. Some HCs say they have more comprehensive rules. Some HCs says some of the rules are given as directions in some judgments.
Luthra : There is also a issue of standardization of VC hearing rules on trial.

CJI : That is a separate issue. We have a case from Delhi today.

Luthra : That is item 20. I am appearing in that too.

CJI : No, you don't appear in that. We want you to be amicus in that case.
CJI led bench starts dictating the order :

'The deficiencies in trials were found attributable to criminal rules of practice in force. So it was felt necessary to prepare draft rules which can be incorporated in existing rules'.
CJI led bench starts dictating the order :

Notices were issued to Registrar Generals of High Courts, Chief Secretaries/Administrators of States/UTs and Advocate Generals for general consensus on draft rules.
CJI led bench starts dictating the order :

A committee comprising Senior Advs R Basant, Siddharth Luthra and K Parameshwar was constituted to go into the issues after considering the existing rules of all the High Courts. The Committee submitted a report on draft rules.
CJI led bench states in the order :

This court has got responses only of High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Delhi and Allahabad to the draft criminal rules.
CJI led bench states in the order :

In such circumstances, we consider it necessary to call upon the High Courts to submit their reports within 2 weeks. In case HCs cannot do so, the Registrar General of the HC shall remain present in this court on the next hearing date
The bench states the reply must be a "substantive reply" and not just a formal reply.

On failure to do so, the Registrar Generals of HCs must appear on next hearing date with necessary instructions.
Adv Sneha Kalita for Gauahati High Court says that the High Court has submitted an affidavit in 2017.

Luthra : That was in the early stage. We are seeking response to the report submitted in March 2020.
Kalita says the copy of the report is not served on the Gauhati HC.

CJI says that the copy of the report is available in the official website of the Supreme Court and may be accessed from there.
Luthra : As regards item 20(case against Delhi HC physical hearing), I have endorsed a statement supporting virtual hearing. It is part of record. I think it is my duty to point that out.

He submits this is response of CJI's suggestion to make him amicus in that case.
CJI : How is this a disqualification? Just because a person has expressed a view on the matter, that is not a disqualification to be a member of committee. Generally, there is a peculiar lack of comprehension about constitution of a committee. They are not judges.
CJI : We are not saying this in reference to the case(item 20). We are talking of a general misunderstanding. Committee members are not judges. They can change their views.

More from Live Law

More from India

In his letters describing the India Mission, Carey has given us an insight into how the society functioned then, of how the minds of the people worked and what methods the missionaries used to approach and brainwash the common people.


It is entirely possible that,Carey in his arrogance of being the white man and hence more civilized,his inability to under the Hindu scriptures and his natural disdain for the learned community coupled with his inherent hatred for the idolaters may have exaggerated the incidents.

In fact, considering the venom with which he has spoken about Hinduism and it's practices, it's likely that he has exaggerated these incidents. But it cannot be denied that these incidents did happen even if they may not have been on scale at which Carey has described.

One of his journal entry mentions a debate which happened in a temple in front of around 200 people. Carey describes having debated with two learned men and goes on to say when both learned men failed to answer his questions, he went on to preach the gospel to the assembled crowd


In a letter dated 30th June,1795 he goes on to gleefully narate how Hindus were unaware of their own scriptures and how an supposed expert named a grammar book when he was questioned as which scripture said that the Murti is God.

You May Also Like

Still wondering about this 🤔


save as q