Literature reviews on the criminal justice system often have one unique phrase. Many literary reviews across the world use this particular term while dealing with the justice delivery system by the judiciary. Do we remember the legal phrase called justice delayed is justice denied? It is one of the most important phrases that should not be ignored in most cases of any criminal trial. This phrase is more suitable for the Indian judicial and justice delivery system. There have been a lot of issues that have been delayed in conferring justice. One of such cases is in the Nirbaya Case as well. But, there are other cases as well. Indian judiciary has also brought the right to a speedy trial as part of article 21 of the Indian constitution. This article will look into a few of the Indian cases to analyze the stand of the judiciary on the concept of speedy trial.

Why speedy trial is important:

Before looking into some of the cases which deal with speedy trials, it is important for us to understand why a speedy trial is more important. This can be viewed for different reasons. One reason is that if there are delays in proceedings of the trials under the criminal courts in India, then the society and the people as a whole may tend to disregard the justice delivery system itself. Criminal cases, unlike the civil case, are offences in rem; that is, they are viewed to be against society as a whole. So, in that case, the delay would degrade the status of the judiciary among the common people. But, this does not mean that the cases should be disposed of very early without any hearing of the other side. They should also keep in mind the principles of natural justice, that is the audi altarem partem – the right of hearing.

There should be balance in terms of the justice delivery system also the trial as such. We should also note that there are many cases where the Indian judiciary decided that a long delay to provide justice would automatically make a person denied of his right to a speedy trial under article 21 of the Indian constitution, as it deals with personal liberty. Let us see some of the cases to understand the court’s stand on this matter.

Important case laws:

In the case of the Legal aid Committee representing Undertrial Prisoners v. Union of India, the facts of the case state that there were prisoners who were imprisoned under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances act of 1985, and there was no bail that was provided by the lower courts. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the prisoners should be set free and contended that their trials were completely delayed beyond a reasonable time. The court, in this case, generally noted that any kind of deprivation of personal liberty under article 21 of the constitution should not be absolute in nature. This requires some deprivation of personal liberty. But, in this case, the court observed that the prisoners had suffered the imprisonment, which is more than the maximum punishment under the provisions of the offences, and any more deprivation of liberty would disregard the right to speedy trial provided under article 21 and 14 of the Indian constitution, which entails the justness, fairness and also reasonableness.

In the case of Shaheen Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors (1996), where public interest litigation was filed by the petitioner, with a prayer to release the undertrial prisoners in the prisons who have been accused and charged under the TADA (Terrorist and Disruptive activities (Preventive) act of 1987. The petitioners prayed for a direction for all the states and also the union government to provide a list of prisoners who have been charged under that act and also requested the court to direct the authorities to release such listed prisoners in prison. Petitioner based the relief that the release shall be done to those détentes who have been accused with no proper pieces of evidence by the prosecution side and where the procedure was also not properly followed as per the law. Further, as per the directions to submit the list, very few states have reported the list, and the courts took the trial. The court observed that there were no proper and speedy trials that had taken place when the TADA had been in place. Also, as per the legislative intent on the law, they preferred very less speedy trial proceedings and also very less chance for them to get bail. This makes sure that in order to protect the community as a whole, the speedy trial in the special courts took place very little, which is violative of articles 14 and 21 of the constitution. But, the act of TADA prescribes that those violations shall not be considered in the cases of accusations made under the TADA act. So, the court denied the petition on such ground even though there was no speedy trial.

In the case of Hussain and Another v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India combined two main petitions where the question of speedy trial has been raised under article 21 of the Indian constitution. In one, the accused person was detained for a long time without taking him to trial, and no speedy trial was achieved. On the other hand, in the second case, the prisoner who was accused of an offence and spent his long term and requested bail as part of his speedy trial right under article 21. In this case, considering both the instances, the court observed and also directed the relevant authorities who have their obligations to ensure the speedy trial to properly effectuate their obligation under article 21 of the Indian constitution. The high court should also ensure that there are annual plans with them, and it should also fix a time limit for the other courts under it for all the criminal trials, in which there are long-term prisoners and accused without speedy trial. Thus, it is violative of Article 21 of the Indian constitution and directed the authorities accordingly.

Conclusion:

Having analyzed the need for a speedy trial, we can conclude that there is no need to provide a remedy or decide a case at the cost of the accused person’s personal liberty. They are also entitled to be heard properly, and the constitutional principles and natural justice principles provide the same. Courts should also act reasonably and not prejudicially while dealing with those cases.