The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday questioned the purpose of continuing litigation against ageing convicts while hearing the CBI’s appeal challenging bail granted to former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav in the Deoghar fodder scam case.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Joymalya Bagchi expressed concern over the continued prosecution of accused persons who are now in advanced age.
During the hearing, the Bench noted that most accused in the decades-old scam are now senior citizens.
“Accused are in their 60s, 70s and 80s.”
The Court indicated that criminal proceedings must also consider the realities of time — especially in matters dating back over three decades.
The CBI had approached the Court challenging the bail granted to Lalu Prasad Yadav after conviction in the Deoghar treasury case, one of several cases arising from the multi-crore fodder scam involving fraudulent withdrawal of public funds from Bihar treasuries.
The Bench emphasized that appellate litigation must have a meaningful objective rather than become mechanical continuation of prosecution.
“What purpose will be served now?”
The observation suggested the Court’s focus on proportionality — balancing seriousness of offence with humanitarian considerations such as age, health and delay in conclusion of proceedings.
The fodder scam cases involve offences under Sections 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant), 420 (cheating), 467, 468, 471 IPC and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Deoghar treasury case pertains to illegal withdrawal of government funds meant for animal husbandry department expenditures during the 1990s.
While conviction stands, the present dispute concerns post-conviction bail granted considering health conditions and prolonged litigation.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that suspension of sentence can be justified where:
- Appeals are unlikely to be heard soon
- The convict has already undergone substantial sentence
- Age and medical conditions warrant relief
The Bench appeared to signal similar reasoning in the present case.
The hearing reflects an evolving criminal jurisprudence principle — justice must remain humane, even after conviction.
Three important implications emerge:
- Courts may increasingly apply proportionality in long-pending corruption cases.
- Advanced age and delay can influence post-conviction bail decisions.
- Prosecuting agencies may face stricter scrutiny in pursuing appeals lacking practical consequences.
The Supreme Court’s remarks highlight a broader philosophy: punishment is not merely about retribution but also about fairness, practicality and dignity — especially when the criminal process itself spans generations.