SPEEDY TRIAL: NEED OF THE HOUR
Introduction
We all know the fact that a speedy trial is the need of the hour. Speedy trial is one of the basic human rights as without speedy trial justice cannot be said to be done. It has been endorsed in almost all international charters and conventions.
Most notably, one of them was ratified by India on 10, April 1979, which was Civil and Political Rights. The Directive Principles of State Policy articulated in Articles 38(1), 39 and 39-A of the Constitution of India and also on account of India’s international legal obligations to guarantee delivery of justice on time. No existing law specifically provides for any timeframe for the conclusion of the trial and if any timeframe has been provided in any statute then it is ‘directory’ not ‘mandatory’. The Supreme Court through its various judgements observed that speedy trial is inherent under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Article 21
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The protection under Article 21 is available not only from executive actions but also from legislative actions. In Munn v. Illinois, the Court held that the term ‘life’ meant something more than mere animal existence.
Justice Bhagwati in the Maneka Gandhi Case observed that:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”
The terms ‘Life and Liberty’ are very comprehensive terms and if interpreted it includes a person’s right to a speedy trial. ‘Life and Liberty’ are for the living. Every person has a right to live a free and healthy life. In the case of the victim, he ends up visiting the court for years to get justice. In the case of the accused, he languishes behind bars for years awaiting trial. We all know that an accused is not guilty until proven guilty. In both cases parties to a proceeding. Such delay in proceedings violates their right to life and personal liberty and leads to mental anguish. Their worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance due to undue delay should be minimised.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, in 1978, in the Maneka Gandhi case held that for the deprivation of life and liberty of a person, two conditions are necessary:
There should be a law, and
The law should be ‘reasonable’,’ fair’ and ‘just’.
The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be “reasonable, fair or just” unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial.
Speedy trial under Article 21
In India, criminal cases go on for years, even sometimes for decades and if we take a look at civil cases, the condition is horrible. Speedy trial is important to safeguard the miscarriage of justice as well as undue and oppressive incarceration and ensures dispensation of justice by providing fair and just trial to all its citizens. After independence for two decades, courts were not very much concerned with the length of time an undertrial prisoner spent in prison, but what they maintained was that the prosecution had to justify the continued detention of the undertrial. But the post-emergency Supreme Court recognised the importance of not letting the incarcerated languish behind bars and evolved a series of Fundamental Rights that were not expressly present in the Indian Constitution. This included the Fundamental Right of Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delay in process
The main purpose of a speedy trial in the criminal justice system is to ensure justice to the victim and protect the accused from unnecessary incarceration before his conviction. So, the demand for speedy trial arose due to unnecessary delay in the disposal of cases. In 1981, State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjabi , observed that while deciding the question of whether there has been a denial of the right to a speedy trial, the Court is entitled to take into consideration whether the delay was unintentional, caused by overcrowding of the court’s docket or understaffing of the prosecutors and whether the accused contributed a fair part to the time taken. There are many reasons which can be responsible for the delay in the trial. The most popular among them are:
On the part of the judicial system like pendency of cases, the vacation of court, judge population ratio, independence of the judiciary.
On the part of the counsel like taking adjournments, lengthy arguments to impress clients, no preparation of the case.On the part of the accused like absconding, non-cooperative behaviour, etc.
Consequences of delay
The real question before the Court was how to identify whether the delay is proper or not and if it is proper then what would be the consequences of such delay. To understand the answer to this question let’s have a look at some landmark judgements of the Supreme Court.
Sheela Barsa vs Union Of India, 1986
In this case, the Supreme Court held that if an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental Right to Speedy Trial would be violated unless there is some interim order passed by the superior Court or deliberate delay on the part of the accused. The consequence of such a delay would be that the prosecution would be liable to be quashed.
P. 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:
1. length of delay,
2. the justification for the delay,
3. the accused assertion of his Right to Speedy Trial, and
4. 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.
Justice Bhagwati in the Maneka Gandhi Case observed that:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”
The terms ‘Life and Liberty’ are very comprehensive terms and if interpreted it includes a person’s right to a speedy trial. ‘Life and Liberty’ are for the living. Every person has a right to live a free and healthy life. In the case of the victim, he ends up visiting the court for years to get justice. In the case of the accused, he languishes behind bars for years awaiting trial. We all know that an accused is not guilty until proven guilty. In both cases parties to a proceeding. Such delay in proceedings violates their right to life and personal liberty and leads to mental anguish. Their worry, anxiety, expense and disturbance due to undue delay should be minimised.
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, in 1978, in the Maneka Gandhi case held that for the deprivation of life and liberty of a person, two conditions are necessary:
• There should be a law, and
• The law should be ‘reasonable’,’ fair’ and ‘just’.
The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be “reasonable, fair or just” unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial.
Speedy trial under Article 21
In India, criminal cases go on for years, even sometimes for decades and if we take a look at civil cases, the condition is horrible. Speedy trial is important to safeguard the miscarriage of justice as well as undue and oppressive incarceration and ensures dispensation of justice by providing fair and just trial to all its citizens. After independence for two decades, courts were not very much concerned with the length of time an undertrial prisoner spent in prison, but what they maintained was that the prosecution had to justify the continued detention of the undertrial. But the post-emergency Supreme Court recognised the importance of not letting the incarcerated languish behind bars and evolved a series of Fundamental Rights that were not expressly present in the Indian Constitution. This included the Fundamental Right of Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Delay in process
The main purpose of a speedy trial in the criminal justice system is to ensure justice to the victim and protect the accused from unnecessary incarceration before his conviction. So, the demand for speedy trial arose due to unnecessary delay in the disposal of cases. In 1981, State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji, observed that while deciding the question of whether there has been a denial of the right to a speedy trial, the Court is entitled to take into consideration whether the delay was unintentional, caused by overcrowding of the court’s docket or understaffing of the prosecutors and whether the accused contributed a fair part to the time taken. There are many reasons which can be responsible for the delay in the trial. The most popular among them are:
- On the part of the judicial system like pendency of cases, the vacation of court, judge population ratio, independence of the judiciary.
- On the part of the counsel like taking adjournments, lengthy arguments to impress clients, no preparation of the case.
- On the part of the accused like absconding, non-cooperative behaviour, etc.
Consequences of delay
The real question before the Court was how to identify whether the delay is proper or not and if it is proper then what would be the consequences of such delay. To understand the answer to this question let’s have a look at some landmark judgements of the Supreme Court.
Sheela Barsa vs Union Of India, 1986
In this case, the Supreme Court held that if an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental Right to Speedy Trial would be violated unless there is some interim order passed by the superior Court or deliberate delay on the part of the accused. The consequence of such a delay would be that the prosecution would be liable to be quashed.
Provisions under CrPC
Besides the above judgements, there are various legislative provisions (some of them were already existing some of them were inserted through amendments) under the Code Of Criminal Procedure,1973 to ensure speedy trial:
Already existing provisions
- Section 157 (1) of CrPC imposes a duty upon the police officer, who on receiving information of commission of an offence, has to immediately send a report of the same to the magistrate and to proceed to the spot to investigate.
- Section 173(1) of Cr.P.C. provides a mandatory provision to complete all the investigations given under the chapter XII of the CrPC without unnecessary delay.
- Section 207 of CrPC the accused has a right to get free of cost copies of:
o Police Report
o FIR recorded under Section 154.
o Statement recorded under Section 161(3) of all persons.
o Confession and the statement recorded under Section 164.
o Any other document forwarded to the magistrate with the police report under Section 173(5). - Chapter XXI of CrPC From Section 260 to Section 265 provides for summary trial in certain petty offences.
- Section 468 of CrPC Provides that after a certain period, there is a bar to take cognizance of offences specified in subsection (2). It means the limitation period is 6 months for the offences punishable with a fine only, 1 year for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and 3 years for the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
Remedies available in case of delay in proceedings
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. Our 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.
Conclusion
From the above facts, we can conclude that initially, the speedy trial was not so important but after the period of emergency, the Courts started taking interest in providing speedy trials to prevent unnecessary harassments to the parties to a criminal proceeding. The Apex Courts through its judicial pronouncements held that speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the constitution and hence no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty without the procedure of law and the procedure of law must be ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’, and ‘just’.
The right to a speedy trial is available at all stages namely, investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The Supreme Court in its various judgements emphasised that a person can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 to enforce the right to a speedy trial. However, the Court at various times refused to fix a time limit under which a trial has to be concluded. At last, after making so many provisions to ensure speedy justice the people of India are still not getting speedy justice in the true sense. There exist various reasons for the delay in the trial. Though the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, it still requires empirical study and comprehensive law for its meaningful application.