SPEEDY TRIAL IS A PART OF ARTICLE 21

Asmita Kuvalekar | Government Law College, Mumbai | 13^th March 2020

HUSSAIN AND ANR V UNION OF INDIA WITH AASU V STATE OF RAJASTHAN (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2017 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2017) 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

Both Appellants being prisoners pending trial/appeal, this case underlines the importance of an efficient judicial infrastructure to ensure speedy trial. The Supreme Court summarily orders both cases to be disposed of within 6 months from the date of this judgement but goes a step further to remind the country that speedy trial is an essential human right. In India, it is covered under the protective wing of Article 21 and therefore should be upheld and advanced as far as possible. 

ISSUE: 

1. Right to speedy trial is severely undermined and a large number of under trial prisoners are languishing in jails despite amendments to the law. 

JUDGEMENT: 

With this case, the Apex Court passed yet another landmark judgement with respect to the rights of under trial prisoners in India but not without highlighting the significance of the right to a speedy trial. A speedy trial, however heinous the crime maybe, is perhaps one of the most universally accepted principles of criminal justice. In India, this right is further enshrined in the Constitutional promise of a “reasonable, just and fair procedure” under Article 21. Violation of Article 21 and denying speedy trial to the accused is a violation of rule of law and it is the duty of all Courts to remedy the same.

The Court also recognized that it is the State’s administrative responsibility to ensure that the judicial system is fit to deal with the crippling workload. Courts themselves are empowered to take measures for better handling of cases. A reference to Hussainara Khatoon¹ and Noor Mohammed v Jethanand and anr.² was made to reiterate the extensive guidelines set out in the former alongwith every High Court’s responsibility to ensure that the Hussainara Khatoon guidelines are duly followed. 

The Supreme Court pointed out that undue imprisonment is not conducive to the liberty and dignity envisaged by Article 21. Neither is long imprisonment awaiting trial. But the Court being mindful of specific situations regarding heinous crimes, clarified that if a prisoner cannot be safely released on bail, the trial must be expedited. In its own words, “timely delivery of justice is a part of human rights”. This “timely delivery” is not only essential for upholding a humanitarian justice system, it also encourages citizens to believe in the system. Loss of time leads to loss of belief. 

Additionally, the judges in this case showcased not only the problem but also its causes. Numerous adjournments, blatant violation of amended law under Section 436A Cr.P.C, unnecessary strikes by lawyers or frequent suspension of Court work were held to be contributory factors. 

Providing a new set of guidelines this time around, the Supreme Court suggested certain immediate measures such as less adjournments, targeted disposal of 5 year old cases, and trial in absentia as per Section 339B of Bangladesh’s 1898 Code of Criminal Procedure etc. Amicus Curiae Mr. Siddharth Luthra and Additional Solicitor General Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni’s recommendations regarding regular monitoring by all High Courts were also considered. To that effect, the Court directed High Courts of all states to prepare annual action plans for disposal of criminal cases in all subordinate courts. 

Lastly, the Supreme Court made it a point to reprimand uncalled for strikes, held illegal in Ex Captain Harish Uppal v Union of India³ and directed the High Courts to take stringent actions in such circumstances. Thus, with comprehensive guidelines and a clear goal of upholding Article 21 and the rule of law, this judgement brings with it some hope for a better judicial administration in our country.