The State, you have already implemented the directions issued by the High Court. Do you oppose the setting aside of these directions?

My Lord, the State has implemented the directions in good faith and they have resulted in some improvement in the service of summons and production of witnesses. The State does not oppose the continuation of these measures. However, the State leaves it to this Court to decide whether the directions are legally valid. If this Court finds that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to issue these directions, the State will not challenge that finding. However, the State requests that the measures already implemented be allowed to continue, as they serve a public purpose and have been accepted by all stakeholders.

Is there any provision in the BNSS that empowers the High Court to direct the State Government to create departmental accountability systems for service of summons?

My Lord, there is no specific provision that empowers the High Court to issue such directions. However, the High Court's power is not limited to specific provisions. The High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 486 BNSS) to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice. The High Court also has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts. The directions were issued in exercise of these powers. Moreover, the State Government itself issued the Government Orders and circulars in compliance with the directions. The State does not object to the directions. The issue is one of form, not substance.

If the High Court wants to address systemic issues, why did it not do so through a PIL under Article 226 rather than through a bail application? Would that not have been the proper procedure?

My Lord, it is true that the High Court could have registered a suo motu PIL. However, the fact that the High Court chose to issue directions in a bail application does not make the directions invalid. The High Court was concerned about the delay in the specific case before it, and it also noticed that the delay was part of a systemic problem. The directions were intended to ensure that the trial in the pending case could proceed expeditiously. They were not purely general directions; they were connected to the case before the Court. The High Court's approach, while perhaps unconventional, was not without jurisdiction.

The petitioner has already been released on bail. The directions do not affect him. Why should he be allowed to challenge them?

My Lord, the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the directions because they were issued in a proceeding to which he was a party. The impugned order is the order rejecting his bail application. The directions are part of that order. He is aggrieved by the order. The fact that this Court has granted him interim bail does not render the challenge moot. He is entitled to have the entire order, including the directions, reviewed. Moreover, the directions could affect him indirectly — for example, if the Trial Court, following the High Court's directions, takes coercive measures that impact the trial. The petitioner's challenge is maintainable.

For RespondentCriminal Premium

High Court Acted to Ensure Speedy Trial Under Article 21 — (2026) INSC 511

The High Court has the power to issue directions to ensure the speedy trial of cases under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Ram Balak v. State of U.P. — (2026) INSC 511

Core Argument

The High Court has the power to issue directions to ensure the speedy trial of cases under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The directions regarding service of summons and witness production are within the High Court's constitutional power to secure the ends of justice and are not barred by the scope of Section 483 BNSS.

Key Precedents

State of U.P. v. Anurudh 2026 SCC OnLine SC 40 — Cited to recognise the distinction between constitutional power and statutory power, but distinguished on the ground that the directions in the present case do not contradict any statutory scheme and are within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in