![[Exclusive] The youngsters have raised the bar: Vishy Anand on India getting it’s 100th chess grandmaster, rise of the game and what needs to improve](https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-img/img/2026/11/10/1600x900/logo/anand_1794284027292_iuTG_1794284031480_9Tt8_7c7943e4-769b-4c77-b87c-4b0f3d357b76_qs4f.jpg "[Exclusive] The youngsters have raised the bar: Vishy Anand on India getting it’s 100th chess grandmaster, rise of the game and what needs to improve"){kind=logo}
Tribune News Service
Saurabh Malik
Chandigarh, July 31
In a significant judgment liable to change the way people are proceeded against in criminal cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that every accused is entitled to procedural safeguards and the investigating agencies cannot deviate from it.
The assertion came as Justice Harpreet Singh Brar set aside nearly a decade-old order of conviction and 10-year sentence awarded to three accused in a drugs case after ruling that there were gaping holes in prosecution evidence.
COnstitutional obligation
IO is the linchpin of criminal justice delivery system. Articles 14, 21 and 39-A cast an obligation on him to follow the procedural safeguards. —Justice Harpreet Singh Brar
Justice Brar asserted: “The foundation of justice dispensation rests upon public faith and trust. Every accused is entitled to the procedural safeguards and the investigating agencies cannot deviate there from. Hence, the fundamental right to a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution, becomes all the more essential for dispensation of justice.”
Justice Brar also made it clear that the “standing orders” issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau were mandatorily required to be adhered to as long as these did not override the provisions of the NDPS Act. The investigating officers were bound to follow the procedural safeguards provided under the standing orders of 1988 and 1989 as these were in addition to the safeguards provided under the Act. These further strengthen the procedural protection, keeping in view the stringent punishment provided under the Act.
Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Brar asserted the link evidence was completely missing and the prosecution miserably failed to knit together the circumstances pointing towards the “hypothesis of complicity of the appellants beyond a reasonable shadow of doubt”.
