Shraddha Walker trial orders show court pushed back against Aaftab's delay tactics
A review of Delhi court orders in the Shraddha Walker murder case shows that, contrary to claims of repeated delays at Aaftab Poonawala's request, the court has consistently pushed for a speedy trial.
A recent Delhi court order postponing proceedings in the Shraddha Walker murder trial by a day after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sought permission to appear for his MA Sociology examination triggered a debate over whether the case was being repeatedly delayed at the accused's request.
Questions were raised over whether the court had routinely accommodated adjournments sought by Poonawala on grounds ranging from medical appointments to personal reasons, thereby slowing down the trial in the high-profile murder case.
However, a review of court orders accessed by India Today presents a different picture.
Records since the commencement of the trial show that the court, which has seen proceedings before three judges so far, has consistently stressed the need for a faster trial, repeatedly criticised the defence for delaying tactics and fixed consecutive hearing dates to ensure uninterrupted recording of evidence.
Court orders indicate that judges warned the defence against seeking unwarranted adjournments on multiple occasions, granted "last opportunities" for cross-examination several times and, in more than one order, observed that the defence appeared to be stalling the proceedings.
The trial court also rejected a plea by the accused seeking only two hearing dates per month, noting that the prosecution had cited more than 212 witnesses and that several witnesses were travelling from outside Delhi to depose in the case. Subsequent orders show the court moving towards block calendars and day-to-day hearings to speed up the trial.
Shraddha Walkar, 27, was strangled in a rented apartment in Delhi's Mehrauli in May 2022, by her live-in partner, Aaftab Amin Poonawala, following a heated argument. He then chopped up the woman's body into dozens of pieces, stored them in a refrigerator and, over the next months, went around disposing of them in various locations.
On May 29, Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, who has been hearing the matter since August 2025, directed that witness testimonies be recorded on a day-to-day basis. Observing that the progress of the trial had become "tardy", the court put Aaftab on notice and said that since his lawyer had submitted that he could not attend hearings on a day-to-day basis, the accused must make appropriate arrangements to ensure he was duly represented by an advocate.
COURT FLAGGED DELAY TACTICS REPEATEDLY
The trial court records show that concerns over delays were raised on at least seven occasions.
In February 2024, the court observed that it appeared Aaftab's counsel was trying to stall the proceedings. Judge Manisha Khurana made the observation after a proxy counsel sought more time on the ground that the main counsel was unavailable despite dates having been fixed according to the defence's convenience.
In May 2024, the court again noted that the defence counsel was "deliberately trying to stall the proceedings" and pointed out that dates had been specially fixed in accordance with the counsel's case diary despite the legal requirement that criminal trials proceed on a day-to-day basis.
In July 2024, while rejecting Aaftab's plea to restrict hearings to two dates every month, the court observed that the application appeared to be "only a tool to protract and delay the trial". It also noted that defence counsel had failed to appear on dates fixed as per his convenience.
In August 2024, the court remarked that Aaftab appeared to be deliberately delaying the cross-examination of witnesses and closed the opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses.
In December 2025, the court noted that it was the second instance in the same month when the non-availability of Aaftab's lawyer had been cited. It reminded the accused that he could engage or change counsel if his legal team remained unavailable.
In February this year, the court observed that the progress of the trial had lately become tardy and directed both the prosecution and defence to avoid unwarranted adjournments except in cases involving urgent medical assistance or bereavement.
The same concern was reiterated in May, when the court recorded that the progress of the trial had indeed become tardy. It also noted that the cross-examination of one prosecution witness had remained incomplete over nine dates and that thirteen prosecution witnesses had yet to complete their testimonies.
MULTIPLE 'LAST OPPORTUNITIES' GRANTED
Court orders also show that judges repeatedly gave the defence final chances to conduct cross-examinations.
In September 2023, the court made it clear that no further opportunity would be granted to cross-examine two prosecution witnesses.
The next month, in October 2023, it granted a "last and final opportunity" to cross-examine a prosecution witness after the exercise had already been deferred earlier at the defence's request.
In May 2024, the court warned that if defence counsel remained absent on dates specifically fixed for cross-examination, the right to cross-examine other prosecution witnesses would also stand closed.
In October the same year, the accused was given a last opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, failing which the right would stand closed.
A similar "last and final opportunity" was granted in November 2024, with the court warning that failure to proceed on the next date would result in closure of the right to cross-examine.
In April 2025, while recalling a prosecution witness who had travelled from Mumbai, the court granted a "last opportunity" for cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs 3,000.
COURT PUSHED FOR FASTER PROCEEDINGS
Several orders reveal the court's efforts to expedite the trial.
In January 2025, the court reminded the defence that the matter was before a fast track court and observed that engagement of the main counsel elsewhere could not justify stalling proceedings.
In October 2025, the court directed all parties to provide clear dates so that the trial could proceed on a day-to-day basis.
In December 2025, it prepared a block calendar covering January to April 2026, scheduling three dates in January, four in February, five in March and five in April. The court also warned that no adjournment requests would be entertained.
Finally, in May 2026, the court ordered that from July 20, the case would be listed on a day-to-day basis from 2 pm onwards.
MEDICAL AND PERSONAL REQUESTS DIDN'T HALT PROCEEDINGS
Court records also indicate that requests made by the accused for medical reasons did not automatically halt the trial.
In March this year, when Aaftab informed the court that he would not be able to appear on March 25 due to a psychiatrist appointment, the court directed the Jail Superintendent to reschedule the appointment before March 24 and submit a medical status report.
In July last year, when the accused sought permission for dental treatment and a dental procedure, the court sought a reply and deferred consideration of the application to the next date, while continuing with other aspects of the trial on the same day.
Taken together, the court orders suggest that rather than routinely permitting delays, the trial court has repeatedly emphasised speedy proceedings, cautioned the defence over adjournments and taken a series of measures aimed at ensuring that the Shraddha Walker murder trial progresses without unnecessary interruption.
A recent Delhi court order postponing proceedings in the Shraddha Walker murder trial by a day after accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala sought permission to appear for his MA Sociology examination triggered a debate over whether the case was being repeatedly delayed at the accused's request.
Questions were raised over whether the court had routinely accommodated adjournments sought by Poonawala on grounds ranging from medical appointments to personal reasons, thereby slowing down the trial in the high-profile murder case.
However, a review of court orders accessed by India Today presents a different picture.
Records since the commencement of the trial show that the court, which has seen proceedings before three judges so far, has consistently stressed the need for a faster trial, repeatedly criticised the defence for delaying tactics and fixed consecutive hearing dates to ensure uninterrupted recording of evidence.
Court orders indicate that judges warned the defence against seeking unwarranted adjournments on multiple occasions, granted "last opportunities" for cross-examination several times and, in more than one order, observed that the defence appeared to be stalling the proceedings.
The trial court also rejected a plea by the accused seeking only two hearing dates per month, noting that the prosecution had cited more than 212 witnesses and that several witnesses were travelling from outside Delhi to depose in the case. Subsequent orders show the court moving towards block calendars and day-to-day hearings to speed up the trial.
Shraddha Walkar, 27, was strangled in a rented apartment in Delhi's Mehrauli in May 2022, by her live-in partner, Aaftab Amin Poonawala, following a heated argument. He then chopped up the woman's body into dozens of pieces, stored them in a refrigerator and, over the next months, went around disposing of them in various locations.
On May 29, Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, who has been hearing the matter since August 2025, directed that witness testimonies be recorded on a day-to-day basis. Observing that the progress of the trial had become "tardy", the court put Aaftab on notice and said that since his lawyer had submitted that he could not attend hearings on a day-to-day basis, the accused must make appropriate arrangements to ensure he was duly represented by an advocate.
COURT FLAGGED DELAY TACTICS REPEATEDLY
The trial court records show that concerns over delays were raised on at least seven occasions.
In February 2024, the court observed that it appeared Aaftab's counsel was trying to stall the proceedings. Judge Manisha Khurana made the observation after a proxy counsel sought more time on the ground that the main counsel was unavailable despite dates having been fixed according to the defence's convenience.
In May 2024, the court again noted that the defence counsel was "deliberately trying to stall the proceedings" and pointed out that dates had been specially fixed in accordance with the counsel's case diary despite the legal requirement that criminal trials proceed on a day-to-day basis.
In July 2024, while rejecting Aaftab's plea to restrict hearings to two dates every month, the court observed that the application appeared to be "only a tool to protract and delay the trial". It also noted that defence counsel had failed to appear on dates fixed as per his convenience.
In August 2024, the court remarked that Aaftab appeared to be deliberately delaying the cross-examination of witnesses and closed the opportunity to cross-examine certain witnesses.
In December 2025, the court noted that it was the second instance in the same month when the non-availability of Aaftab's lawyer had been cited. It reminded the accused that he could engage or change counsel if his legal team remained unavailable.
In February this year, the court observed that the progress of the trial had lately become tardy and directed both the prosecution and defence to avoid unwarranted adjournments except in cases involving urgent medical assistance or bereavement.
The same concern was reiterated in May, when the court recorded that the progress of the trial had indeed become tardy. It also noted that the cross-examination of one prosecution witness had remained incomplete over nine dates and that thirteen prosecution witnesses had yet to complete their testimonies.
MULTIPLE 'LAST OPPORTUNITIES' GRANTED
Court orders also show that judges repeatedly gave the defence final chances to conduct cross-examinations.
In September 2023, the court made it clear that no further opportunity would be granted to cross-examine two prosecution witnesses.
The next month, in October 2023, it granted a "last and final opportunity" to cross-examine a prosecution witness after the exercise had already been deferred earlier at the defence's request.
In May 2024, the court warned that if defence counsel remained absent on dates specifically fixed for cross-examination, the right to cross-examine other prosecution witnesses would also stand closed.
In October the same year, the accused was given a last opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, failing which the right would stand closed.
A similar "last and final opportunity" was granted in November 2024, with the court warning that failure to proceed on the next date would result in closure of the right to cross-examine.
In April 2025, while recalling a prosecution witness who had travelled from Mumbai, the court granted a "last opportunity" for cross-examination, subject to payment of Rs 3,000.
COURT PUSHED FOR FASTER PROCEEDINGS
Several orders reveal the court's efforts to expedite the trial.
In January 2025, the court reminded the defence that the matter was before a fast track court and observed that engagement of the main counsel elsewhere could not justify stalling proceedings.
In October 2025, the court directed all parties to provide clear dates so that the trial could proceed on a day-to-day basis.
In December 2025, it prepared a block calendar covering January to April 2026, scheduling three dates in January, four in February, five in March and five in April. The court also warned that no adjournment requests would be entertained.
Finally, in May 2026, the court ordered that from July 20, the case would be listed on a day-to-day basis from 2 pm onwards.
MEDICAL AND PERSONAL REQUESTS DIDN'T HALT PROCEEDINGS
Court records also indicate that requests made by the accused for medical reasons did not automatically halt the trial.
In March this year, when Aaftab informed the court that he would not be able to appear on March 25 due to a psychiatrist appointment, the court directed the Jail Superintendent to reschedule the appointment before March 24 and submit a medical status report.
In July last year, when the accused sought permission for dental treatment and a dental procedure, the court sought a reply and deferred consideration of the application to the next date, while continuing with other aspects of the trial on the same day.
Taken together, the court orders suggest that rather than routinely permitting delays, the trial court has repeatedly emphasised speedy proceedings, cautioned the defence over adjournments and taken a series of measures aimed at ensuring that the Shraddha Walker murder trial progresses without unnecessary interruption.
