Right to Speedy Trial

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL :

A HUMAN RIGHT AND
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

Speedy Trial as a Human Right The right to a Speedy Trial is first mentioned in that landmark document of English law, the Magna Carta. With evolution of concept of Human Rights in 20th century, Right to Personal Liberty emerged as one of the basic Natural Right of every human being. Deprivation of personal liberty is caused when any person is under detention for any alleged crime. This makes it necessary to establish a balance between need of Criminal Justice System and protection of basic Human Rights of an accused person. Over a period of time lot of water has passed under the bridge. And it has come out that Right to Speedy Trial is most important Human Right of an accused person and is implicit in Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Major International documents takes cognizance of this and provides directly or indirectly Right to Speedy Trial as Human Right. These are:
A) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 9(3)- Anyone arrested or detained on criminal charge shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time…..
Article 9(4)- Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a Court, in order that Court may decide without delay…..

B) African Charter on Human Rights
Article 7(1)- Every individual shall have the right to have his cause heard. This comprises:…(d) the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial Court or Tribunal.
C) American Convention on Human Rights
Article 7(3)- Any person detained shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time…..
Article 7(4)- Anyone who is deprived of his liberty shall be entitled to recourse to a competent Court in order that Court may decide without delay…..

D) European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom, 1950
Article 5(3)- Everyone arrested or detained shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time…..
Article 5(4)- Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a Court…..

This kind of recognition as Human Right given to Right to Speedy Justice has made many States to provide it expressly as Fundamental Right and even if not provided so expressly, then to ensure its enforcement as integral part of Right to Life and Personal Liberty.[1]

Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right Speedy Trial is a Fundamental Right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution of India and any accused who is denied this right of Speedy Trial is entitled to approach Supreme Court under Art. 32 for the purpose of enforcing such right. The right to Speedy Trial is not a fact or fiction but a “Constitutional reality” and it has to be given its due respect. A delay in justice is not only unfairness but social injustice. The mental pressure imposed on the accused due to delayed justice is wholesome inhuman act. Courts may provide justice after taking long time but no court can ever provide the compensation of mental persecution, social isolation and self respect and self-esteem In Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India and Another [2], a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court went into the meaning of expression “procedure established by law” in Article 21. The court held that the procedure established by law does not mean any procedure but a procedure that is reasonable, just and fair. The court read Articles 19 & 14 into Article 21 of the constitution for this purpose: The law must therefore now be taken to be well-settled that Article 21 does not exclude Article 19 and that even if there is a law prescribing a procedure for depriving a person of ‘personal liberty’ and there is consequently no infringement of the Fundamental Right conferred by Article 21, such law, insofar as it abridges or takes away any Fundamental Right under Article 19 would have to meet the challenge of that Article. Now, if a law depriving a person of 'personal liberty' and prescribing a procedure for that purpose within the meaning of Article 21 has to stand the test of one or more of the Fundamental Rights conferred under Article 19 which may be applicable in a given situation, ex-hypothesis it must also be liable to be tested with reference to Article 14. There can be no doubt that Article 14 is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. In fact equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic, while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness, which legally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence and the procedure contemplated by Article 21 must answer the test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Article 14. It must be “right and just and fair” and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive; otherwise, it would be no procedure at all and the requirement of Article 21 would not be satisfied. In Hussainara Khatoon (No. 1) vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [3] a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by number of under-trial prisoners who were in jail in Bihar for years awaiting their trial. The Supre Court held that “Right to Speedy Trial” a Fundamental Right is implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution. Speedy Trial is the essence of Criminal Justice. In United States Speedy Trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed right. Bhagawati J. held that although, unlike the American Constitution Speedy Trial is not specifically enumerated as a Fundamental Right , it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair and just’. For this reason the Court ordered the Bihar Government to release forthwith the under-trial prisoners on their personal bonds.[4] As a result of this decision more than 18000 under-trials were released in the State of Bihar in 1981.[5] In Hussainara Khatoon (No. 2) [6] the Supreme Court reprimanded the respondent for keeping the under-trials in jail for periods longer than the period of imprisonment prescribed for the offences they were charged with. The Court emphasized the right to have legal services vis-à-vis the Speedy Trial. In Hussainara Khatoon (No. 3) [7] Justice Bhagawati pointed out that “if the accused confronted with loss of liberty and poor to engage a lawyer was not provided with free legal services by the state the trial itself may run the risk of being vitiated as contravening Article 21. ” The need to ensure Right to Speedy Trial was reiterated by Supreme Court in Bhagalpur Blinded Prisoners case [8] where police had blinded 31 under-trials in the custody In Abdul Rehman Antulay and Others versus R. S. Nayak and Another [9], a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated the position that a right to speedy trial is implicit in article 21 of the constitution. In this case the court also laid down detailed propositions of law on Speedy Trial of an accused in a criminal case but it declined to fix any time limit for trial of offences. The burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. The Court held that the Right to Speedy Trial flowing from article 21 is available to accused at all stages namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial revision and retrial. The concerns underlying the Right to Speedy Trial from the point view of the accused are: a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words the accused shall not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long detention point of his conviction; b) the worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance to his vocation and peace resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial shall be minimum; and c) undue delay may result in impairment of the ability of the accused to defend himself whether on account of death, disappearance or non-availability of witnesses or otherwise. The court said that the accused cannot be denied the Right to Speedy Trial merely on the ground that he had failed to demand a Speedy Trial. As regards the time limit the Court said that it has to be decided by balancing the attendant circumstances and relevant factors, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court etc. No time limit can be fixed for Speedy Trial. If the court comes to the conclusion that the Right to Speedy Trial of an accused has been infringed the charges for the conviction shall be quashed. But this is not the only course open. The nature of the offence and other circumstances may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such case it may make an order that the trial may be concluded within a fixed time and where it is concluded reducing the sentence. In the case Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [10] it was again declared that Right to Speedy Trial is an essential part of Fundamental Right to life and liberty. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar which formed the basis of the concept of the Speedy Trial, it was held that where under trial prisoners have been in jail for duration longer than prescribed, if convicted, their detention in jail is totally unjustified and in violation to fundamental rights under article 21. Inordinate delays violates article 21 of the constitution: for more than 11 yrs the trial is pending without any progress for no faults of the accused-petitioner. Expeditious rights is a basic right to everybody and cannot be trampled upon unless any of the parties can be accused of the delay. Delay in trial unnecessarily confers a right upon the accused to apply for bail. Under sec. 482 read with 483, Cr. P.C lays that every possible measure to be taken to dispose off the case within 6months from today. No adjournments to be granted until and unless circumstances are beyond the control of judiciary. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to keep a check on under trial prisoners and bring them to trial. Overcrowded courts, inadequate resources, fiscal deficiency cannot be the reasons for deprivation of a person.
Role of State to ensure Right to Speedy Trial The Supreme Court already held in Hussainara Khatoon case, that speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in art. 21 of the Constitution and any accused who is denied this right of speedy trial is entitled to approach Supreme Court under art. 32 for the purpose of enforcing such right and this Court in discharge of its constitutional obligation has the power to give necessary directions to the State Governments and other appropriate authorities for securing this right to the accused. Supreme Court, therefore, in order to exercise this power and make this fundamental right meaningful to the prisoners in the State of Bihar request the High Court to inform as to how many Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges are there in each district in State of Bihar and what is the number of cases year wise pending before each of them. The High Court will also supply information to this Court as to whether having regard to the pending files before the Sessions Judges, Additional Sessions Judges and Assistant Sessions Judges and the norms of disposal fixed by the High Court there is need for any Additional Courts in any of the districts and if there is such need whether steps have been taken by the High Court for establishing such Additional Courts. If no steps have been taken so far, the High Court may immediately address a communication to the State Government stressing the need for creation of Additional Courts and requesting the State Government to take necessary action for setting up such Courts and appointing Judges to man such Courts and the State Government, Court is sure, will take the necessary steps for this purpose. This right to Speedy Trial is implicit in article 14, 19(1) (a) and 21 of the constitution as well as the CrPC. It is the constitutional obligation of the government to devise such procedures as would ensure and implement speedy trial. Supreme Court being majestic authority has to act as guardian of fundamental rights of citizens. Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares in a mandatory tone that no person shall be deprived of his life or his personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Life and liberty, the words employed in shaping Article 21, by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution, are not to be read narrowly in the sense drearily dictated by dictionaries; they are organic terms to be construed meaningfully. Embarking upon the interpretation thereof, feeling the heart-throb of the Preamble, deriving strength from the Directive Principles of State Policy and alive to their constitutional obligation, the Courts have allowed Article 21 to stretch its arms as wide as it legitimately can. The mental agony, expense and strain which a person proceeded against in criminal law has to undergo and which, coupled with delay, may result in impairing the capability or ability of the accused to defend himself have persuaded the Constitutional courts of the country in holding the right to speedy trial a manifestation of fair, just and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. Speedy trial, again, would encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial in short everything commencing with an accusation and expiring with the final verdict. The constitutional philosophy propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak. Myriad fact-situations bearing testimony to denial of such fundamental right to the accused persons, on account of failure on the part of prosecuting agencies and executive to act, and their turning an almost blind eye at securing expeditious and speedy trial so as to satisfy the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution have persuaded the Supreme Court in devising solutions which go to the extent of almost enacting by judicial verdict bars of limitation beyond which the trial shall not proceed and the arm of law shall lose its hold . The validity or justness of those decisions is not the matter to be decided but the seriousness of delay in the conclusion of criminal and civil matters must be appreciated at the earliest.
Limitation to Right to Speedy Trial In Raghubir Singh vs. State of Bihar [11], the accused persons who were being tried for waging war against State filed writ petition under Article 136 before the Supreme Court for quashing the proceedings before the Special Judge on the ground of violation of their Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the constitution. The Court held that there was no delay in investigation and trial of their cases warranting the quashing of proceeding against them. The Court held that the Right to Speedy Trial is one of the dimensions of the Fundamental Right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21. but the question whether the Right to Speedy Trial was infringed depends upon various factors. Was the delay owing to the nature of the case? Was the delay caused by the prosecuting agency? Was it due to the tactics of the defense? In the instant case, it was found that the delay was caused due to the tactics of the accused as they did assert their rights which was evident from the number of petitions filed before the Magistrate, and the Special Judge from time to time. The delay in investigation and trial was the outcome of the nature of the case and the general situation prevailing in the country.
-----------------------
[1] Lohit D. Naikar, The Law Relating to Human Rights, p. 853 (2004 new edition)
[2] [1978 (1) SCC 248]
[3] AIR 1979 SC 1360
[4] Dr. J.N. Pandey, The Constitutional Law of India, p.261(46th edition)
[5] Lohit D. Naikar, The Law Relating to Human Rights, p. 605 (2004 new edition)
[6] AIR 1979 SC 1369
[7] AIR 1979 SC 1377
[8] Khatri vs State of Bihar, AIR 1981 SC 929
[9] (1992) (1) SCC 225
[10] (1994) 3 SCC 569
[11] (1986) 4 SCC 481