INTRODUCTION

The present case is a landmark judgment on the speedy trial of cases that came to be recognized as a fundamental right of every accused person. It is an aspect of the rightful administration of justice. The Constitutional obligation upon State to below take the protection of rights of people under Article twenty one is comprehensive of the duty to confirm there’s a speedy trial of cases. It conjointly ensures the proper to access free legal services to the poor as an important a part of Article 21 of the Constitution.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

• An article was published in the newspaper Indian Express in 1979 regarding the detention of under-trial prisoners in the Bihar jail. Few of these under trial prisoners were serving in prison for a very long time, in fact, a period longer than their actual span of imprisonment awarded by the courts.
• A writ petition of habeas corpus was filed under Article 32 before the Court for the release of 17 under-trial prisoners whose names were mentioned in the newspaper article in the state of Bihar.
• The state of Bihar was directed to file a revised chart showing the year-wise break-up of the under-trial prisoners after dividing them into two broad categories viz. charged with minor offences and therefore different with other major offences.

ISSUES RAISED

• If the right to speedy trial be considered a part of Article 21?
• Can the provision of free legal aid be enforced by the law?
• Whether Right to speedy trial is a fundamental right or not?

ARGUMENTS RAISED

It was asserted in the counter-affidavit produced at the Court that many under-trial prisoners, confined in the Patna Central Jail, the Muzaffarpur Central Jail and the Ranchi Central Jail before their release have been regularly produced before the Magistrates numerous times and have been remanded to judicial custody as
needed.

However, the Court found these claims unsatisfactory as they do not comply with the order to produce the dates on which these under-trial prisoners were remanded. Moreover, to justify the pendency of cases, it has been contended that in almost 10% of the cases, the investigation is held up due to delay in receipt of opinions fromexperts.

The concerns raised by petitioners underlying the right to speedy trial rom the point of view of the accused were

1. The period of remand and pre conviction detention should be as short as possible and accused shall not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long detention point of his conviction.
2. The worry anxiety, disturbance to his vocation from unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial shall be minimal.
3. Undue delay also results in impairment of the ability of accused to defend himself.

JUDGEMENT

Bench- N. Bhagwati, J.; A. Desai, J.
The Court directed that these under-trial prisoners whose names and particulars are given in the list filed should be released forthwith as continuance of their detention is illegal and in violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution because they have been in jail for a duration exceeding the maximum
term that they should have been convicted for.
The Court additionally directed that on the next remand dates, when the under-trial prisoners, charged with bailable offenses, will be produced before the Magistrates, the State Government should appoint them an attorney/lawyer at its own cost for making an application for bail and opposing remand provided that no objection is raised to such a lawyer on their behalf and with an aim that speedy trial is executed.
The State cannot deny the constitutional right to a speedy trial to the suspect by pleading money or administrative inability. The Court is hence required to adopt an activist approach issue directions to State to take positive action to secure enforcement of the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The Court said that the accused cannot be denied the right of speedy trial merely on the ground that he failed to demand a speedy trial.
As regard the time limit the Court said that it has to be decided by balancing the attendant circumstances and relevant factors, including the nature of offence,number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the Court etc. The Court clearly said that no time limit can be fixed for the speedy trial.

The State Government and High Court were required to furnish particulars as to the location of the courts of magistrates and courts of sessions in the State of Bihar along with the total cases pending in each court as of 31st December, 1978. They are also required to explain as to why the disposal of those cases as having been
pending for more than six months not been possible.
The Court recommends to the State and the Central Government, to adopt a comprehensive legal service program which is mandated not only by Article 14 which guarantees equal justice and Article 21 which confers the right to life and liberty, however additionally embodied within the constitutional directive embodied in Article 39A.

WAY AHEAD

In my view Hon’ble Court gave a very good judgement in this case. They recognized the problems faced by many prisoners due to unduly delay in proceedings of the case thereby violation their right to personal liberty under
Article 21. The Hon’ble Court also said that Right to Speedy trial is a fundamental right of every citizen within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court also asked the state governments to provide free legal aids to the needy prisoners and this will surely help to get their right of speedy trial.

SUBMITTED BY
ANIKET DIMRI
AMITY LAW SCHOOL NOIDA