Undue delay CANNOT be a ground to

Correct option is A

The correct answer is (a) quash criminal prosecution.

Explanation

While it might seem counter-intuitive, under Indian law, mere delay in the trial or investigation is generally not an absolute ground to quash a criminal prosecution, especially for serious offences.

The Supreme Court has clarified this across several landmark judgments:

• Serious Offences: In cases involving grave crimes (like murder, economic fraud, or terrorism), the Court holds that the interest of society in punishing the criminal outweighs the right to a speedy trial. Prosecution cannot be "thrown out" solely because of the passage of time.
• A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992): The Constitution Bench ruled that while "speedy trial" is a fundamental right under Article 21, the court cannot prescribe a specific time limit (a "stopwatch") after which a case must be quashed. Each case must be judged on its own facts—considering who caused the delay (the accused or the state).
• Sirajul v. State of U.P. (2015): The Court reiterated that mere delay is not enough to quash proceedings when the offences are serious.

Why the other options are grounds for delay:

• (b) Modify Death Sentence: In Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India (2014), the Supreme Court ruled that an inordinate and unexplained delay by the President/Governor in deciding a mercy petition is a valid ground to commute a death sentence to life imprisonment.
• (c) Release on Bail: Under Section 436A of the CrPC (and recent PMLA rulings in 2024-2025), if an accused has undergone detention for a significant period (often half of the maximum sentence) due to trial delays, they are entitled to be released on bail.
• (d) End Disciplinary Proceedings: In P.V. Mahadevan v. MD, Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005), the Court quashed departmental proceedings because a 12-year delay in initiating them caused "mental agony" to the employee and was found to be prejudicial.