Right to Speedy Trial

1) INTRODUCTION
“What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that
as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never
ever result in burying the cause of justice.”- Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari1

Article 21 was certainly not a fresh start. Its beginning in the world history can be outlined back
to 1215, if not prior, as it was in that year that Magna Carta saw the buoyant. Worries for liberty
was shown for the first time in 1215, it may be stated that the antiquity of the antecedent and
evolution of the approach of personal liberty can be established in Greek civilization. Magna
Carta of 1215 undoubtedly, is the actual harbinger, as it was in that duration that King John
acknowledged the Charter of liberties under threat of civil war. King John affirmed that "to no
one will be sell, to no one will be deny or delay right or justice." Magna Carta was succeeded by
Petition of Rights in 1628; Habeas Corpus Acts of 1640 and 1679; and then by Bill of Rights in
1689, which stated the rights and liberties of the subjects.

The effort for liberty has provided the most magnificent and motivating soap opera of human
history. Indian freedom struggle is not an exception. The current Indian Criminal law is a output
of British inheritance and Experiences, which is recognized as "Common Law" in its normal
1
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/speedy-trials-shouldnt-bury-the-cause-of-justice-supreme-
court/article30351471.ece
2
https://3rdsession.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/index.jpg?w=315&h=225

1|Page
parlance. With the passage of era many amendments were made to suit the local urgency and the
exigency. The author finds that the Constitution of India and not even statutes or current laws
categorically speak about the accused right of speedy trial.

2) Speedy Trial under the Constitution of India

“An effective judicial system requires not only that just results be reached but that they be
reached swiftly.”

The Constitution of India give forth the probe and inclination of the humankind for justice and
the justice delivery system is obliged to deliver prompt and cost effective justice to its
consumers, without in any manner making concession on the quality of justice or the elements of
fairness, equality and impartially. Quality of justice suffers not only when an clean-handed
person is punished or a guilty person is absolve or acquit but when there is so much of delay in
deciding cases. It is a right saying that "Justice delayed is Justice Denied" speedy trial is a right
of the accused that cascade from Article 21 of the Constitution as held by the Supreme Court in a
number of cases. It is clear out that the Constitution of India does not provide any express
provision regarding the right to speedy trials. But the same can be under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

Speedy trial is, hence, the fundamental of criminal trial and in all possibility we can say that a
delay in trial per se constitutes denial of justice.

In one of the finest hours of judicial activism when Article 21 of the Constitution was truly
interpreted in Manka Gandhi v. Union of lndia,3 the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon4
proceeded further ahead to hold that no procedure which does not ensure a reasonable quick trial
can be regarded as reasonable fair or just and it would fall out of Article 21. We can presumably
say that there is no doubt that speedy trial is an integral and crucial part of the fundamental right
to life and liberty preserved in Article 21.

3
AIR 1978 SC 597.
4
AIR 1979 SC 1369

2|Page
 3) Some of the important sections of the Speedy Trial under Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
The procedure for criminal trial as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down a
number of provisions aimed at reducing the delay in the investigation and trial of offences.

 Section 56 of the Criminal Procedure says that if a police officer is arresting a person
without warrant shall, not make unnecessary delay and subject to the provisions with
respect to bail, produce the person before the magistrate having jurisdiction in the case or
before the police officer in charge, but the police officer is duty bound to produce the
accused person before the court in which he is required by law without unnecessary
delay, provided that such delay should not, in any circumstances, transcend 24 hours
excluding the time taken for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate's
Court.5
 Section 173 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure binds the police officer to conclude the
investigation without any unreasonable delay and is also further bound to hand over the
report to the Magistrate immediately after the investigation is completed.6
 Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure imposes a time limit for the investigation
to be completed and it also forbid courts for taking any cognizance of certain offences
which are minor in nature after the limitation period has been expired.7
 Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates expeditious conduct of trial. In
particular, it requires that when the examination of witnesses has once begun, the same
shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been
examined, unless the court finds the adjournment of the proceeding beyond the following
day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded.8

5
Section 76, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6
Section 173 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
7
Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that except as otherwise provided in this Code , no Court
shall, after the expiry of the period of limitation, take cognizance of an offence which shall be- (a) six months, if the
offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year,if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not
exceeding one year: (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three year
8
Section 309, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

3|Page
  Section 437(6) of the Code provides that if the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable
offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the date fixed for taking
evidence, such person is to be released on bail if he is in custody
 In addition to it the above mentioned section there is also Section 353 which provides
that the judgment shall be pronounced in open court by the presiding officer just after the
termination of the trial or at some later time of which notice shall be given to the parties
or to their pleaders.9

4) Judicial Pronouncements on Speedy Trial in India

10

The Indian judiciary plays a major role in protecting the rights of the people and it has tried
to give certain rights like right to speedy trial, right to fair trial etc. a constitutional status by
including all these rights within the purview of Article 21 of our Constitution.

In State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar,11 a Bench of seven judges of the Supreme Court
held that 'Ihe necessity of a speedy trial is too vague and uncertain to form the basis of valid
and reasonable classification .It is too indefinite as there can hardly be any definite objective
test to determine it. It is no classification at all in the real sense of the term as it is not based
9
Section 353(1) of The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the judgment in every trial in any Criminal Court
of original jurisdiction shall be pronounced in open Court by the presiding officer immediately after the termination
of the trial or at some subsequent time of which notice shall be given to the parties or their pleaders- (a) by
delivering the whole of the judgment; or (b) by reading out the whole of the judgment ;or (c) by reading out the
operative part of the judgment and explaining the substance of the judgment in a language which is understood by
the accused or his pleader.
10
https://encryptedtbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn
%3AANd9GcQLftDkupX01j0qKteV9DrBAjT6wd5D1IoALHVgIaTAcOowzQDw&usqp=CAU
11
AIR 1952 SC 75.

4|Page
 on any characteristics which are peculiar to persons or to cases which are to be subjected to
the special procedure prescribed by the Act"

The Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 12has stated clearly held that Article
21 of the Constitution of India confers a fundamental right on every individual not to be
deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and
such procedure as required under Article 21 has to be "fair, just and reasonable" and not
"arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive". The court has further stated that "If a person is deprived of
his Liberty under a procedure which is not 'reasonable', 'fair' or 'just', such deprivation would
be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce
such fundamental right and secure his release." The apex Court has observed that in the
broad sweep and content of Article 21 right to speedy trial is implicit.

In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kapil Deo Shukla,13 though the Court found the acquittal of the
accused unsustainable, it refused to order a remand or direct a trial after a lapse of 20 years.

5) Sacrifice or No sacrifice in speedy trial?

"Justice should not be sacrificed in an attempt to dispose of a case in a speedy manner"-

Additional Sessions Judge SK Gupta

The term “speedy” is relative in the legal background. What can be called a speedy trial in one
representation the might not in another? In general sense, a speedy trial is one thatcome out as
soon as reasonably obtainable , subject to qualifications.

Now coming to the millon dollar questions:: - if “justice delayed is justice denied, but is justice
hurried is justice buried?”

We already know that in every landmark case there is facts and evidences coming through
detailed examination of direct and indirect evidences and after analysing of facts, and several
examination and cross examination of several witness judgement is delivered. If we start running

12
(1978) 1 se c 248.
13
• (1972)3 se c 504.

5|Page
the current legal system to deliver justice immediately then there would be a lot of difficulty,
hardship and miscarriage of justice. If the present legal justice system is fastened then the
problem which it will face is the burden of solving cases,there are 59,867 cases pending in the
Supreme Court, and 44.75 lakh cases in various high courts. At the district and subordinate court
levels, the number of pending cases stand at a shocking 3.14 crore .14 Allahabad High court has
the most pending cases. The author agrees that justice demands that it should be delivered at a
high rate, but at the same time there should be no miscarriage of it. And in an attempt to speed
up the justice the necessary facts and evidences should not be ignored and should be scrutinise
properly, because if it will not be so then important judgements may turn to catastrophe and
people may lose faith in judiciary.

So the author suggests that rather than slowing down and fastening up the current court
proceedings if the court comes encourage and hasten with alternatives then it would be a feather
in the cap for the current justice system.

In Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh15 an order was passed by a Bench of Justices UU

Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari, where it was held that “Expeditious disposal is
undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair
trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic
elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal
administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice
must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed.  What is paramount is the cause of justice and
keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be
expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice.”16

6) Conclusion and Suggestions

The Constitution of India does not precisely talk about the right to speedy trial but the aforesaid
has been given in a position of fundamental right by way of assimilation of Article 21 of the

14
https://thewire.in/law/pending-court-cases
15
Criminal Appeal Nos.62-63 of 2014
16
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110783225/

6|Page
Constitution of India. Likewise the Constitution of India, the Code of Criminal Procedure also
guarantee the right to speedy trial in its different provisions.

The most important thing which should keep in mind is that the accused should be given an
opportunity to present their aspect. This is one of the most pestilent points of any trial and the
absence of an opportunity given to either side could result in justice buried.

 More appointments of judicial officers, ministerial staff and public prosecutors are
recommended. The delay is caused not only by our lengthy criminal procedure but also
by fewer people available on the other side. The ratio of judge to the population requires
fivefold more appointments than the available number. Today, appointments are yearly or
after every2 years in the judiciary to overcome the pendency of cases.
 The criminal procedure needs to be simplified for the common man. The party has
Fundamental Right to get fair and speedy trial. This right is violated when the backlog
assigned to a judicial officer is also to be cleared off. It causes delay in the
pronouncement of judgment.
 The object of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is further to ensure that an accused
person gets a full and fair trial along with certain well-established and well-understood
canons of law that accord with the notions of natural justice, which helps at every stage
of the proceedings. There are numerous provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 which provides for early investigation and fair and speedy trial, in reality due to
various factors such as overcrowded court dockets, absence of prosecution motivation,
defense tendency to prolong, speedy trial is yet an illusory goal. The criminal
administration system has to mold itself in order to ensure both fair and speedy trial to the
parties.
 The vacancy created by the retirement of the judge should be filled six months prior or,
another option is retiring judge be allowed to remain in position till the successor joins.
Endeavour should be made to minimize the inconvenience to victims by securing privacy
and safety.
 The details of the proceedings at every stage must be provided to the accused(s) and the
victim(s) also.

7|Page
 All the processes during litigation shall be served on the advocate for the respective
parties which they represent.

8|Page