Palghar Rioting: Bombay HC Rules Magistrates Cannot Act as Prosecution Mouthpiece, Must Ensure Fair Trial
The Bombay High Court was hearing an appeal by fourteen accused person in the Palghar Rioting case
Fairness Cannot Be Sacrificed for Speed, Rules Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court has observed that magistrates are not to act as the mouthpiece of the prosecution but must remain impartial arbiters of justice, ensuring that trials are conducted fairly while also adhering to the statutory mandate of speed under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
The court pointed this out in the context of an appeal by fourteen accused in a rioting case from Palghar, who had challenged the framing of charges on the very day the chargesheet was filed, alleging that they had been denied adequate opportunity to defend themselves.
The single-judge Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak made the aforesaid observation, clarifying that the right to a speedy trial under the BNSS cannot be achieved by compromising fairness or natural justice.
The court held that magistrates must strike a balance between expeditious disposal of cases and safeguarding the rights of the accused, cautioning that undue haste in conducting proceedings may be perceived as bias in favor of the prosecution and erode confidence in the criminal justice system.
The case arose out of a First Information Report lodged at Wada police station, Palghar, in March 2024, relating to alleged rioting incidents.
A chargesheet was filed in October 2024, and on the same day, the magistrate framed charges against all fourteen accused.
The accused contended that they were not given time to engage counsel, study the material filed, or move discharge applications. They further argued that the magistrate's decision amounted to a denial of fair trial rights and reflected an approach tilted towards the prosecution.
Court, while hearing the appeal, emphasized that the BNSS, which has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays equal stress on both fairness and speed.
It was observed that while the statute empowers magistrates to prevent delays and reject frivolous adjournments, it does not authorise them to rush through critical stages of trial in a manner that undermines procedural safeguards.
The High Court stressed that fairness requires affording the accused reasonable time to prepare their defense, consult counsel, and where necessary, seek discharge before charges are framed.
It was also recorded that the accused had applied for certified copies of the proceedings only in June 2025, nearly eight months after charges were framed, and the delay in providing them pointed to systemic inefficiencies that compound the denial of fair opportunity.
The bench added that magistrates should be mindful of their role in facilitating access to documents and evidence, noting that an accused cannot be left at the mercy of administrative delays when his liberty and fair trial rights are at stake. At the same time, the judgment underscored that the duty to conduct trials fairly does not mean that magistrates must tolerate dilatory tactics. Court clarified that magistrates retain the authority to regulate proceedings, including imposing costs where either side attempts to abuse the process or cause undue delay.
The emphasis, however, must be on transparency and impartiality, ensuring that both prosecution and defence are given equal opportunity to present their case within reasonable timelines.
It was further reiterated that the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial cannot be subordinated to the objective of speed.
The ruling essentially serves as a reminder that magistrates, as the first judicial authority in the criminal process, occupy a crucial position in upholding the balance between the State’s power to prosecute and the individual’s right to liberty. Their role is not to assist the prosecution but to ensure that the trial unfolds within the boundaries of fairness, impartiality, and the statutory framework.