The Supreme Court of India (Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar) held that a victim of an offence possesses the requisite locus standi to approach the High Court seeking the expeditious disposal of a criminal trial. Overturning a Delhi High Court ruling that restricted the right to a speedy trial exclusively to the accused and the State, the Supreme Court ruled that the victim is a key stakeholder in the criminal justice system and is fully entitled to invoke Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) [equivalent to Section 482 CrPC] to demand a speedy and fair trial.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date of Decision: October 9, 2026
Subject Area: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 528) | Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 482) | Right to Speedy & Fair Trial | Locus Standi of Victims in State Prosecutions
Key Legal Principles Established by the Supreme Court
1. Victim as a Definite Stakeholder in Criminal Justice
- The Court rejected the narrow approach that reduces a victim’s role in State-prosecuted cases to that of a mere prosecution witness.
- As the entity who suffered direct injury or loss at the hands of the accused, the victim (or their legal guardian) is a primary stakeholder and holds a vested legal right to demand both a fair and an expedited trial.
2. Locus Standi under Section 528 BNSS (Inherent High Court Powers)
- Victims possess the requisite locus standi to invoke the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to seek directions for time-bound disposal of trial court proceedings.
3. Rejection of Judicial Castigation & Costs on Victims
- The apex court strongly disapproved of the High Court describing a victim’s plea for an expedited trial as a “drain on the overflowing dockets of the Court.”
- Describing such petitions as frivolous was held to be based on a “complete misreading of legal and constitutional provisions,” prompting the Supreme Court to set aside the ₹10,000 fine imposed on the appellant.
Summary of Judicial Directions
| Parameter | Delhi High Court View (Reversed) | Supreme Court Final Holding |
| Locus Standi of Victim | Denied (Restricted to State or Accused). | Upheld: Victim has equal standing to seek speedy trial. |
| Plea Characterization | Deemed “frivolous” and a drain on court dockets. | Held to be a legitimate exercise of constitutional & statutory rights. |
| Costs Imposed | Imposed ₹10,000 penalty on the complainant. | Completely set aside. |
| Trial Directions | Dismissed application. | Directed Trial Court to conclude remaining PWs within an outer limit of 1 year (from Sept 24, 2026). |
Key Quote from the Judgment
“To say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness, is not correct. A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Like the accused, she has also a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and also for a fair trial… We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court castigating the victim for bringing a petition before the Court seeking a speedy trial as being completely frivolous and a drain on the overflowing dockets of the Court.”
— Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar