CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has raised serious concerns over delays and procedural lapses in anti-corruption cases while quashing a vigilance case against senior IAS officer Bijay Ketan Upadhyaya.
In a detailed 41-page judgment delivered on April 17, Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi highlighted what he described as a recurring pattern of prolonged proceedings in vigilance matters.
‘Delays reflect systemic issue’
While granting relief to the officer, the court noted that although cognisance in the case had been taken more than two years ago, charges had still not been framed.
Justice Panigrahi observed that such delays are not isolated but indicative of a broader problem affecting multiple stages of prosecution—from investigation and filing of chargesheets to cognisance and trial.
“It is a matter of serious concern that courts are repeatedly being confronted with vigilance prosecutions that remain pending in a state of abnormal inertia,” the court remarked.
Right to speedy trial applies at all stages
The court cautioned that judicial restraint during early stages of investigation must not be misused by agencies to delay proceedings indefinitely.
Emphasising constitutional safeguards, the judge reiterated that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India applies even at the investigation stage.
Procedural lapses compounded delays
While noting that delay alone may not justify quashing a case, the court found that in this instance, it was compounded by serious procedural flaws, particularly in the sanction process under anti-corruption laws.
Such defects, the court held, made the prejudice against the accused more concrete and legally significant.
‘Trial becomes punishment’
The judgment also focused on the human cost of prolonged legal proceedings, especially in vigilance cases.
“A vigilance prosecution, by its very nature, carries a burden far heavier than the ordinary weight of a criminal case,” the court observed, citing reputational damage, professional setbacks, and personal distress.
In a striking remark, Justice Panigrahi said, “a vigilance trial can itself become a punishment—not by sentence of law, but by the slow violence of pendency.”
Warning against erosion of justice
The court warned that excessive delays risk undermining the very purpose of justice.
“When time itself becomes an instrument of suffering, the trial ceases to be a search for truth and begins to resemble punishment without judgment,” the ruling noted.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder of the need for timely investigations, procedural integrity, and accountability in anti-corruption cases.
