In a candid and critical observation on May 11, 2026, the Allahabad High Court addressed the systemic causes behind the "Tarikh pe Tarikh" (date after date) culture in the Indian legal system. Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal clarified that while the public perceives judges as the sole cause of delays, the reality involves a lack of state infrastructure, non-cooperative police, and direct threats to judicial officers. The court emphasized that the judiciary is often left "at the mercy of the State" for basic execution of the legal process.
The court's remarks came during a bail hearing for a murder case (Mevalal Prajapati v State of UP), where it noted significant lapses in police conduct. Justice Deshwal highlighted that judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh are working under extreme frustration. He pointed out that young, hardworking judges often find themselves unable to perform because the police fail to execute summons or warrants, and forensic reports are frequently delayed or improper.
A major point of concern raised by the High Court was the physical safety of judges. The bench revealed that:
- Open Threats: Criminals have given open threats to judicial officers even inside the courtroom during their convictions.
- Intimidation Outside Court: Judges are often indirectly intimidated or shadowed by criminals in marketplaces and public spaces.
- Lack of Security: Most judicial officers lack Personal Security Officers (PSOs), leading them to "ignore" threats simply to avoid conflict and ensure their own safety.
The court further linked the pendency of cases to the "criminalization of politics." Justice Deshwal observed that because criminal cases take years to conclude, many accused individuals take advantage of the delay to become lawmakers and ministers in the state. He asserted that if the police provided proper cooperation and forensic laboratories (FSL) worked efficiently, cases would be disposed of faster, ensuring that "persons with clean antecedents" could come forward for public office while criminals remained behind bars.
From an expert legal perspective, this order is a rare instance of the judiciary "punching up" at the executive's administrative failures. By summoning the Director General of Police (DGP) Rajeev Krishna and the Home Secretary, the court has signaled that it will no longer accept police negligence as a routine excuse for judicial backlog. The court’s demand for PSOs for judicial officers highlights an urgent need to protect the independence of the subordinate judiciary from local "strong-arm" tactics.
The institutional impact of this ruling is likely to put the Uttar Pradesh government on the defensive regarding its "Rule of Law" claims. The court has effectively moved the "Tarikh pe Tarikh" blame from the courtroom to the police station and the state cabinet. It serves as a reminder that a "backbone of democracy" cannot function if it is starved of the very staff and security required to exercise its authority.
Ultimately, the Allahabad High Court’s observations serve as a call for a holistic reform of the criminal justice system in UP. By highlighting that judges are often the victims of the system rather than its masters, Justice Deshwal has opened a necessary dialogue on the "invisible" hurdles to speedy justice—ranging from faulty forensic evidence to the blatant intimidation of the men and women on the bench.