Right to Speedy Trial

Content:

Explanation of the issue and the Ruling:

• The Bombay High Court  said “speedy trial is a fundamental right”, highlighting the issue of people languishing in prisons waiting for the trial to begin.
• A Division Bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar made the comment with respect to those accused in the Bhima Koregaon caste violence case.
• The court was hearing a petition, filed through senior advocate Mihir Desai, seeking a judicial probe into the death of tribal rights activist Stan Swamy 
• For how many years will people languish in jail without trial, Bombay HC asked.

Provisions of Constitution on Speedy Trial:

• The philosophy of the Right to Speedy trial has grown in age. 
• Right to Speedy Trial is a concept which deals with disposal of cases as soon as possible so as to make the Judiciary more efficient and trustworthy. 
• The main aim of the Right to Speedy trial is to inculcate Justice in the society. It is human life that necessitates human rights. 
• Being in a civilized society organized with law and a system as such, it is essential to ensure for every citizen a reasonably dignified life. 
• Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings.
• The right to a speedy trial is first mentioned in that landmark document of English law, the Magna Carta. 

Article 21:

• The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right inherent under Article 21 of the constitution which provides for the right to life and personal liberties. 
• Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.”

Article 32:

• Indian Constitution provides that whenever there is a violation of fundamental rights, a person can move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.  

Important Judicial Rulings:

 Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar:

• In 1979  Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, a petition was filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus, on behalf of a large number of men and women including children who were languishing behind bars for years awaiting trial and that the offences, even if proved, would not warrant punishment for more than a few months.
• The Apex Court, in this case, held that the “right to a speedy trial” is a fundamental right implicit in the right of life and personal liberty provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. 
• In its decision, the court mandated greater access to bail, more humane living standards and a significant reduction in time from arrest to trial. 
• The court observed that no procedure which does not ensure reasonable quick trial can be regarded as reasonable, fair and just. 

Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak, 1992

• In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is available at all stages namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. 
• The Court laid down detailed guidelines for the speedy trial of an accused in a criminal trial but refused to set a time limit for the conclusion of the trial. 
• The Court held that the nature of the offence and the circumstances may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. 
• In such a case it may make an order that the trial may be concluded within a fixed time and reduce the sentence.   

1. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka

• In this case, the Apex Court laid down certain factors to identify whether an accused has been deprived of his Right to Speedy Trial. 
• They are: length of delay, the justification for the delay, the accused assertion of his Right to Speedy Trial, and prejudice caused to the accused by such delay. 
• If nothing is shown and there are no circumstances to raise a presumption that the accused had been prejudiced there will be no justification to quash the conviction on the ground of delayed trial only. 

Problem of Under-trials in India:

Amnesty International India’s report Justice Undertrial: A Study of Pre-trial Detention in India analysed data available with the National Crime Records Bureau and records collected by the human rights organization.

According to the report, the problems of undertrials in India are:

High Undertrial Population:

• India has one of the highest undertrial populations in the world. As of 2019, 69% of prisoners in India’s prisons were ‘undertrials’
• In other words, there are twice as many undertrials in India’s prisons as there are convicts. 
• Despite executive guidelines, legal reforms, and Supreme Court judgments, the proportion of undertrials in the prison population has stubbornly remained high over the last decade. 

Overcrowded Prisons:

• Most prisons in India are overcrowded, partly as a result of excessive undertrial detention. 
• The average occupancy rate in Indian prisons is 114%, and is as high as 233.9% in states such as Chhattisgarh
• India’s undertrial population has a disproportionate number of Muslims, Dalits and Adivasis. About 53% of undertrials are from these communities, which make up 39% share of the population of India.

Overuse of Undertrial Detention:

• Undertrial detention may be warranted if there is an assessed  risk that an arrested person may, for example, intimidate a witness or tamper with evidence
• In  India,  undertrial detention is more often the rule than the exception. 
• Few prisons appear to know how to accurately determine which undertrials are eligible for release under section 436A.