CIVIL CASE

NAME OF THE CASE:

Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar

CITATIONS:
1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532, 1980 SCC (1) 98

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
09/03/1979

BENCH:
(J.) BHAGWATI, P.N.
(J.) DESAI, D.A.

PETITIONER
Hussainara Khatoon & ORS

RESPONDENT:
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna.
INTRODUCTION
The right to a speedy and just trial is granted to every human being, and the State does not
discriminate against individuals on the basis of caste, religion, gender or place of birth.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which mentions the right to life and personal liberty,
casts a duty upon the State to ensure that every accused person is guaranteed a speedy trial.
Article 39A of the Constitution gives the poor and destitute the right to legal aid and justice,
which, in a country like India, is obligatory since a large part of the population does not have
proper means to fight year-long cases and hire efficient lawyers.
The writ of habeas corpus is instituted so that a person is protected from unlawful
incarceration, i.e. the custody of such a person has to be proven in order to hold him/her
further.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:

 This case is a landmark case in the rights related to prisoner’s trials.

 In 1977, a national police commission was organized and on making of that report,
one of the members of the committee Sir R.F. Rustum visited Bihar jail.

 During the survey of the jails, he visited Muzaffarpur and Patna jails.

 This survey found out that there are many prisoners in the jail without proper trails.

 The survey found that there are many accused who have almost lived more than the
punishment which would have been awarded by the court if found Guilty.

 The report was latter published in the Indian Express newspaper and the article read
about how the undertrial prisoners were serving in prison and under what conditions,
with some of them serving for more than their actual span of imprisonment.

 One of the lawyers of Supreme Court named Pushpa Kapila Hingorani, saw the report
and filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the name of the one of the prisoners
named Hussainara Khatoon.

 A writ of Habeas Corpus was filed before the Supreme Court.

 This case was first Public Interest Litigation in India.

 The writ of habeas corpus is instituted so that a person is protected from unlawful
incarceration, i.e. the custody of such a person has to be proven in order to hold
him/her further.
FACTS OF THE CASE:

 The writ petition filed by Kapila was the first case of Public Interest Litigation in
India (PIL), and it demanded the release of 17 undertrial prisoners, which were
mentioned in the same article of 1979.

 The Bihar government was asked to file a revised chart which displayed the yearly
break-up of undertrial prisoners after dividing them into two categories, viz. those
having committed minor offences and those having committed major ones.

 The writ petition of habeas corpus was filed under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution before the Supreme court for the release of 17 undertrial prisoners. The
case reflected the gullible state of the State's Criminal Justice system.

 A large number of women, minors were behind the bars because of minor and trivial
crimes that would award them incarceration of several months but awaiting justice for
several years or, with major crimes exceeding their period of Maximum time of
sentence or some of them were unaware of their reasoning behind the arrest and did
not remember for how many years they have been in prison.

 The state of Bihar was also directed to file amended chard which records year-wise
breakup of undertrial prisoners redirecting them into two categories - Minor crimes
and others with serious non - bailable offenses but no action was taken by the State
government.

 This reflected a brutal violation of human rights and fundamental values. This was the
first reported case in PIL (Public Interest Litigation) in India. Kapila Hingorani was
called as Mother of Public Interest Litigation of India

 The court found that there are several prisoners including women and minors who are
not held for any charges but under ‘protective custody because they are homeless,
refugees, and witnesses to crimes, or some of them are victims of crime. The court
found that protective custody is a clear violation of Art. 21 of the Indian Constitution
related to the life and liberty of an individual and ordered to release them immediately
and provide them access to basic living conditions and transfer them to rescue homes.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

 Whether the pre-trial detention of the accused for long years waiting for their trials
was a violation of their Fundamental Right of Protection of Life and Personal Liberty
under Article 21 of the Constitution?

 Can the Right to speedy trial be covered in the ambit of Article 32 of the Constitution

 Whether the Directive Principles of State Policies- Article 39A provision related to
free legal aid to poorer sections of society be justiciable or enforced by law?

 Whether the right of the under-trial prisoners to be accessible to free legal services
guaranteed to them under Article 39-A was being infringed due to their unawareness
of their rights?

STATUTES AND PROVISIONS DISCUSSED:

 Constitution of India- Article 21- under trails, Right to life – Right to a speedy trial.
 Constitution of India- Article 39A- Right to free legal aid.
 Criminal procedure code- Sec- 309, Power to Postpone or adjourn proceeding.

ARGUMENTS:

ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:

A significant number of men, women, and even children, were kept behind bars, awaiting
their trials for years. The offences for which some of the prisoners were charged were trivial,
and even after imposing proper charges, the punishment would not have been for more than a
few months of imprisonment.

As per the Petitioner, The right to Speedy trails is a part of Fundamental Right and it has been
averred in the counter-affidavit to the direction of the court that many under- trail prisoners,
confirmed in the Patna central jail and the Muzaffarpur central jail. The prisoners have been
presented before the magistrate prior to that, police has remanded for the judicial custody
several times which is not fair and reasonable.

Another cause of their grief was their poverty, which made it impossible for them to even
obtain bail.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT

As per the reports of the Bihar government, many prisoners that were held in the Central Jails
of Patna, Ranchi and Muzaffarpur as undertrials, before their release, were regularly brought
before magistrates but were remanded judicial custody over and over. To justify the pendency
of so many cases, it was contended that about 10% of cases were pending because they
required the opinions of experts, which was also delayed.

All arguments were found to be unsatisfactory by the Apex Court, and hence it ordered the
release of the 17 undertrial prisoners whose names were mentioned by Mrs. Hingorani in her
writ petition.

To justify the pendency of so many cases, it was contended that about 10% of cases were
pending because they required the opinions of experts, which was also delayed.

As per the Respondent, The order issued by the Supreme Court was not taken into
consideration by the State of Bihar and no one appeared on behalf of, the State of Bihar.

Factors For Pendency of The Cases:

 Delay in disposition of cases because of huge pendency.

 Delay due to lawyers/ advocates.

 Infrastructure issue: The Courts have no convenient building or physical facilities due
to which it takes more time to dispose of a case.

 Provision for adjournment.

 Vacation of the court.

 The Investigation agencies such as Police also play a role in Delay of cases.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE:

The Court coordinated that these under-preliminary detainees whose names and specifics are
given in the rundown recorded by Mrs. Hingorani ought to be discharged forthwith as
continuation of their detainment is illicit and disregarding their essential right under Article
21 of the Constitution since they have been in prison for a length surpassing the most extreme
term that they ought to have been indicted for.
The Court additionally coordinated that on the following remand dates, when the under
preliminary detainees, accused of bailable offenses, are created before the Magistrates, the
State Government ought to name a legal advisor at its own expense for making an application
for bail and restricting remand given that no complaint is raised to such a legal counsellor for
their benefit and with a point that quick preliminary is executed.

The State Government and High Court were required to outfit points of interest concerning
the area of the courts of officers and courts of meetings in the State of Bihar alongside the
complete cases pending in each court as of 31st December, 1978.

They are likewise required to disclose with regards to why the removal of those cases as
having been pending for over a half year not been conceivable. The court directed that the
undertrial prisoners whose names and particulars whose names and particulars are given in
the list filed by Mrs. Hingorani should be released forthwith as continuances of their
detention is illegal and is 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 judgment pronounced in Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar has opened the new scope
of PIL and explored the undisputable problem of outnumbered undertrials. The case of
Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar outcast the shocking revelation of the state affairs
regarding the administration of justice in the state of Bihar.

The Court thus held that:

 Free legal service, as mandate under Article 39-A is an inalienable element of

‘reasonable, just and fair’ procedure, without which a person suffering from economic
or other disabilities shall suffer from unequal opportunity to secure justice.

 Right to free legal service is thus a fundamental right of every accused who cannot
engage a lawyer owing to reasons like poverty or indigence and the State is under a
mandate to provide for a lawyer, provide the accused does not object to the provision
of such a lawyer.

 The State is under a Constitutional mandate to provide speedy trials and cannot avoid
this obligation by pleading financial or administrative inability and the Supreme Court
being the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people may issue directions to the
States for enforcing the fundamental right of speedy trial of the prisoners. These
directions may include taking of positive action, such as augmenting and
strengthening the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, building new court
houses, appointment of additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure
speedy trial
  The Supreme Court also ordered the State Government and High Court to provide
details which included all the factors of the location of the courts of magistrates and
courts of sessions in the State of Bihar and the total number of cases which are
pending in each court as of 31st December 1978. They are also required to explain the
reasons which are involved in the delay in the disposal of the cases if the said case is
pending for more than six months.

MAJOR FINDINGS:

The Supreme Court while delivering the Judgement found that the system of bail is getting
inconsistent with time.

 The judges of the Supreme Court observed that the major reason of poor being
deprived of Justice is the highly unsatisfactory Bail system. The system suffers from a
property-oriented approach which seems to proceed on the erroneous assumption that
the risk of monetary loss is the only deterrent against fleeing from justice.
 The Supreme Court even advised the parliament to re-consider the system of BAIL,
so that the nameless poor are not deprived of Justice.
 The Court in this Case stated that an Accused can be given Bail on the basis of
personal bonds, but there is certain condition which needs to be checked, while giving
an accused bail on the personal bond.
 The Court finds that Article- 21, which is Right to Life, is a broader concept and the
Right to Speedy Trail comes under the broad sweep and content of the Article 21. The
same has been interpreted in the case of Maneka Gandhi V. Union of India.
 It is the Travesty of Justice that poor, because of the bail procedures, it is of their
meagre means and they have to suffer long in year in pre- trail detention, thus it is
implicit that the Judicial system should be Transformed and there should be more
courts and there should be judges in the court by the process of the State.
 The State cannot deny a person its Fundamental Right to a speedy trial on the ground
that it lacks the adequate resources to improve the legal justice system and further the
impetus of a speedy trial.

RATIO DECIDENDI

The court while delivering the Judgement in this case gave the reason that it is travesty of
justice and a crying shame on the judicial system. The nameless poor who are in prison,
denied the fundamental rights and basic facilities. It is already stated in the previous cases
that denial of trails, constitute denial of justice. The major reason while delivering the
judgment, that judges quoted that every human has the right to access justice and
fundamental rights. The poor don’t seek justice as they are merely afraid of the financial
loses, and had to remain in the prison for the time which may be the maximum for the
offence which they would have committed.

Justice delayed is justice denied. These cases prove and stress the significance of the need for
the right to a speedy trial for every citizen. There are many instances where person
convicted is factually innocent of the charges. There were procedural errors that violated
the convicted person’s rights. Statistics on Indian prisons expose that 76.1% of inmates are
under-trial, spending their expensive time in jail without even being found guilty for the
crime. Even though they are offered bail, most being extremely poor citizens, cannot afford
the bail fee. Time spent in jail is not only a restriction to their freedom but it also has a major
impact on their lives even after release as society sees no difference between an under-trial
prisoner and a convict.

The court while delivering the Judgement in this case gave the reason that it is travesty of
justice and a crying shame on the judicial system. The nameless poor who are in prison,
denied the fundamental rights and basic facilities. It is already stated in the previous cases
that denial of trails, constitute denial of justice

The major reason while delivering the judgment, that judges quoted that every human has the
right to access justice and fundamental rights. The poor don't seek justice as they are merely
afraid of the financial loses, and had to remain in the prison for the time which may be the
maximum for the offence which they would have committed.

The Court found that the under-preliminary detainees whose rundown was recorded under the
watchful eye of the Court have been in prison for periods longer than the most extreme term
for which they could have been condemned whenever sentenced. The Court perceived the
hardness of the lawful and legal framework and inappropriate hardship of individual freedom.
The Court likewise understood the predicament of under-preliminary detainees who are for
most occasions, ignorant of their entitlement to get discharge on bail or because of neediness,
can’t connect with a legal advisor. For this, the requirement for a sufficient and extensive
lawful help program is called for.

It is entrenched that Article 21 gives that no individual will be denied of his life or freedom
aside from as per the technique set up by law which should be ‘sensible, reasonable and
just’[iv]. A technique that makes the poor denied of access to legitimate administrations and
needs to go to preliminary without appropriate portrayal can’t be viewed as ‘sensible
reasonable and just’. Offering free legitimate types of assistance to poor and penniless is a
part of any ‘sensible, reasonable and just’ methodology.[v] A layman can’t benefit of the
mastery somewhere else and does not have the aptitude and information he.

Article 39A is a principal established mandate that accentuates that free lawful assistance is a
basic component of ‘sensible, reasonable and only’ technique for without it an individual
confronting financial or different inability would not have the option to make sure about
equity. This privilege is to be viewed as understood in the assurance of Article 21.
Additionally, the accentuation is laid towards the under-preliminary detainees who have been
in prison for the greater part the most extreme term of detainment for which they could be
condemned whenever indicted. There is no motivation behind why these under-preliminary
detainees ought to be permitted to keep on grieving in prison, just on account of the flaw of
the State to not attempt them inside a sensible timeframe. The chance of some of them being
absolved of the offenses charged against them yet having gone through quite a long while in
prison for offenses which they are at last found not to have submitted will be unfavorable to
their opportunity of individual freedom. Consequently, the fast preliminary of people blamed
for offenses gets fundamental to guarantee that the charged people don’t need to stay in
prison longer than is completely essential.

The Court prescribes to the State and the Central Government, an exhaustive lawful
assistance program which is commanded not just by Article 14[vi] which ensures equivalent
equity and Article 21 which presents the privilege to life and freedom, yet additionally
exemplified in the established order encapsulated in Article 39A.

The State can’t deny the protected right to a fast preliminary to the denounced by arguing
money related or regulatory inability.[vii] The Court is thus required to embrace a dissident
methodology issue headings to State to make positive move to tie down implementation of
the basic right to a quick preliminary.

CONCLUSION

The case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar exposes the loophole in the justice system
of the country. Although the right to a speedy trial is a Fundamental Right as mentioned in
our Constitution, the case emphasizes the gross violation of the same, where undertrial
prisoners had to suffer long terms of imprisonment merely because the courts did not have
time to either acquit them or award them their proper sentence. Some of the prisoners were
not even guilty, yet they were not released and kept behind bars, violating basic human rights.
In addition, the bail system that exists in India has been unfair towards poor people who are
unable to afford the costs of legal action. A legal system that cannot ensure justice to the poor
of the country cannot be said to be a fair and just system.

Since the case, about 40,000 undertrial prisoners were released, which shows that if a person
is committed to the welfare of the country, he/she can do it and witness comprehensive
results. There is a need to have more lawyers like Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani so that
the needy and poor can have support when they raise their voice and each citizen must be
well-aware of his/her rights provided to him/her under the law because the law helps those
who are attentive of their rights and not those who sleep over it.