In a landmark ruling that exposes deep-seated inefficiencies in Tamil Nadu’s criminal justice system, the Madras High Court, presided over by Justice P. Velmurugan, has delivered a powerful critique of procedural lapses that have eroded public trust in the judiciary. The court’s order, issued on August 1, in response to four Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.P.Nos.16882, 21404, 18139, and 20852 of 2025), addresses chronic delays in processing charge sheets and executing non-bailable warrants (NBWs).
With a scathing observation, the court declared, “When police and judicial authorities act arbitrarily and fail to adhere to the rule of law, including binding precedents of the Supreme Court and the circulars issued by this Court, such conduct is not merely unlawful but reflects a serious erosion of institutional discipline and respect for judicial norms.”
Unprocessed Charge Sheets Stall Justice Delivery
The court’s order addresses two primary issues: the failure of magistrates to promptly take charge sheets on file and the prolonged non-execution of NBWs. In Crl.O.P.Nos.16882 and 21404 of 2025, petitioners sought directions for magistrates to process charge sheets filed by the police, which had languished for months without action. In Crl.O.P.No.16882, filed by A. Paulraj, the State President of Tamil Nadu HIV Ullor Koottamaippu, the court noted that a charge sheet filed on February 10, 2024, in a cheating case involving Rs.14,00,000 remained unprocessed by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, despite prior court directives. Similarly, in Crl.O.P.No.21404, filed by M. Manikandan, a charge sheet filed on May 11, 2024, concerning a fraud case involving Rs.2,10,00,000, was yet to be taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram.
The court underscored the violation of Rule 25(6) of the Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019, which mandates that charge sheets be taken on file within three days of receipt unless defective. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand (2024), which outlines three options for magistrates upon receiving a police report: taking cognizance, directing further investigation, or discharging the accused. The court lamented, “Even after the final reports have been filed, the learned Magistrates concerned have not acted upon them as mandated by law… resulting in avoidable delay and procedural stagnation.”
The Registrar General’s report, submitted on July 31, revealed a significant gap between the number of charge sheets filed and those taken on file, highlighting a systemic issue across Tamil Nadu’s magistrate courts. The court had previously issued circulars, including one on July 13, 2022 (R.O.C.No.69701-A/2022/F1), directing magistrates not to return charge sheets and to provide acknowledgment upon filing. Despite these directives, the court noted persistent non-compliance, stating, “Such delay, despite clear and specific judicial directions, reflects a lack of promptness and seriousness on the part of the learned Magistrate.”
To address this, the court issued stringent directives, mandating that all charge sheets be taken on file forthwith and processed within two weeks. Additionally, it instructed the Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) to streamline the e-filing system to ensure charge sheets are automatically routed to the correct courts, particularly in combined court complexes where manual verification causes delays. The court also called for training sessions for police officers to ensure compliance with proper charge sheet filing procedures, emphasizing, “Such lapses not only delay the process of taking cognizance but also impose avoidable burdens on the court establishment.”
73,699 Warrants Pending, Justice Stalled
The court’s most alarming findings pertain to the non-execution of NBWs, as addressed in Crl.O.P.Nos.18139 and 20852 of 2025. In Crl.O.P.No.18139, filed by Jamuna Sivalingam, a non-bailable warrant issued on December 18, 2024, against V. Raja Rajacholan in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unexecuted. Similarly, in Crl.O.P.No.20852, filed by S. Senthilvel, a warrant issued in 2018 against K. Nagendiran for a similar offence had not been acted upon for nearly seven years. The court expressed dismay, noting, “The prolonged non-execution of Non-Bailable Warrants over such an extended period reflects a serious lapse in the functioning of the enforcement machinery and weakens the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.”
A report submitted by the Registrar General on July 24, 2025, revealed a staggering 73,699 NBWs pending execution across Tamil Nadu, with 61,305 dating back to 1985–2024, including two cases from 1985. The court described this as “deeply troubling” and a “matter of serious concern,” highlighting a significant discrepancy with the Director General of Police’s claim of only 16,038 pending NBWs. This discrepancy prompted the court to call for reconciled data to ensure accurate reporting.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin v. State of Maharashtra (2012), the court reiterated procedural safeguards for NBW issuance and execution, including the use of machine-numbered warrant forms, maintenance of registers, and timely compliance reports. The court noted, “Had the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court… and the circulars issued by this Court been properly considered and implemented, it is highly unlikely that such a large number of Non-Bailable Warrants… would still be pending.” It criticized the lack of follow-up by judicial officers and police, which allowed warrants to remain unexecuted for decades, stating, “Such gross inaction undermines the very foundation of the justice delivery system.”
The court directed the respondent police to execute the NBWs in the two cases within two weeks, failing which they must return the warrants with a report. It also emphasized the use of Sections 80, 81, 84, and 85 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to declare absconding accused as proclaimed offenders or attach their properties, urging courts to act proactively to prevent trial delays.
Nodal Officer Appointed to Overhaul Court Compliance
To address these systemic failures, the court appointed Mr. R. Mahesh Babu, a retired Chief Administrative Officer, as a Nodal Officer to inspect and verify compliance across Tamil Nadu’s subordinate courts. The Nodal Officer’s mandate includes ensuring proper maintenance of NBW and case property registers, verifying the disposal of seized properties, and imparting training to court staff. The court directed, “The Nodal Officer shall complete the inspection and file interim reports, district-wise, as and when each inspection is completed, before the Registrar General periodically.” He is entitled to a remuneration of Rs.50,000 per month, to be drawn from the High Court’s Contingency Fund.
The Registrar General was tasked with circulating the appointment details, ensuring cooperation from judicial officers, and taking disciplinary action based on the Nodal Officer’s findings. The court emphasized, “These circulars are not intended to be treated as mere administrative formalities; they are mandatory directions designed to uphold constitutional mandates and protect the integrity of the judicial process.”
The Madras High Court’s order highlights a broader crisis in Tamil Nadu’s criminal justice system, where procedural lapses and administrative indifference have led to significant delays in justice delivery. The court warned, “When courts fail to act against absconding accused persons, it encourages them to evade the law with impunity, causes undue hardship to complainants and victims, and also creates room for possible misuse of power by the investigating authorities.” It highlighted the plight of complainants, particularly vulnerable individuals like A. Paulraj, who represents HIV-affected persons, and M. Manikandan, one of 91 victims defrauded of Rs.2,10,00,000.
The court’s directives aim to restore public trust by ensuring timely processing of charge sheets, prompt execution of NBWs, and accountability through rigorous oversight. By mandating systemic reforms, such as streamlined e-filing and training for police officers, the court seeks to eliminate procedural bottlenecks. The appointment of a Nodal Officer signals a proactive approach to monitoring compliance, with the potential to set a precedent for other states grappling with similar issues.
Connect with us at mystory@aawaazuthao.com