THE JOURNEY TOWARDS SPEEDY TRIAL: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF FAIRNESS IN LEGAL PROCESSES. BY - SHANMUGA PRIYA V & JOMY JOSHUA J
THE JOURNEY TOWARDS SPEEDY TRIAL: A CRITICAL
APPRAISAL OF FAIRNESS IN LEGAL PROCESSES.
AUTHORED BY - SHANMUGA PRIYA V &
JOMY JOSHUA J
ABSTRACT
Evolution and history of
signification of the right to a speedy trial in India: the basis thereof in
historical perspectives as part of its legal framework, especially under
Article 21 of the Constitution. It has drawn attention to landmark cases like
Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary where constitutional right to speed up the
trail was decided. Despite judicial diligence, the working of the system is
located at problems. The current total pending court cases top 4 crore, mostly
of undertrial prisoners. It aspires to reform judicial capacity and legal aid;
embrace the ways of technology in its services so that, in fact, the right of
speedy trial shall be really felt by all citizens thus affirming that justice
is an essential quality though noble.
Introduction;
Maybe one of the most basic tenets
that could underlie any effective system of justice is the right to a speedy
trial. The basic idea is to ensure that an accused person is not put to suffer
through long periods of uncertainty, undue detention, or even more so, the
psychological and social burden of an unresolved criminal charge. What is
undermined is the very essence of justice when huge lags in trial proceedings
in themselves form what many people describe as "justice delayed is
justice denied.[1]"
Justice P.N. Bhagwati very aptly
captured the essence of this concern by warning against the dangers of delay in
trials, in so far as he regretted the "slippage of even one year in the
date of the beginning of the trial is bad enough, how much worse could it be if
the delay is 3, 5 or even 10 years." This criticism of the judiciary
undoubtedly finds resonance not only in the corridors of the law academies but
in the streets as well where millions of litigants wait for their turn in the
courts.
This paper is going to present the
development of a speedy trial, from its history to the legal framework that
supports it, and to the challenges that persist to this day to make this right
a reality for Indian citizens. Some crucial case laws will also be considered;
specifically, the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon will be discussed, and
suggestions made on how reforms could make this a reality for all citizens.
Evolutionary History of the Right
to Speedy Trial
Ancient
Period: Public and Open Trials and Judgments
The origins of a
fair and expeditious trial trace their roots back to ancient legal
establishments. In one of the
several ancient Hindu texts that laid down the principles of laws governing
various sections of society, the Manusmriti, it was laid down that public and
open trials are sacrosanct for maintaining public confidence in the court.
According to Sukra, one of the ancient legal scholars, no trial should ever be
conducted in the darkness because legitimacy is denied to the process. Justice
delayed is justice denied is a well-known maxim which has a similar attire in
the Sukra saying which is that “Delay in deciding the cases tantamount to
denial of justice”[2].
Although a "speedy trial"
in the modern sense was not stated in such terms, these early texts do reflect
an appreciation of the fairness, transparency, and inclusion of public
participation in proceedings before the court. It was not infrequently accepted
that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done by the
judicial process so that credence was preserved during the process itself.
Medieval and the British Colonial
Era The Seeds of Delay
Kings’
Justice system
In the Indian medieval period, the
sources of law were not based on legislation but on revelation and it also featured
an unsynchronized and complicated system of Islamic and Hindu laws, though
underlining justice it never became systematic and unanimous. The Hindu jurists
at that time were very cautious to avoid any delay in the trial, and if there was
a delay in deciding the dispute there were precedents that the king had to
suffer some punishment. The Mohammedan Criminal Law had numerous flaws, and
English administrators recognized that many of its provisions were incompatible
with good governance, natural justice, and common sense. Over time, they
introduced reforms to modify and adapt the law to align with their evolving
policies and principles. Despite these changes, the law remained in effect for
a considerable period.
The Hindus and Muslims were not given
equal footing and there was no fairness in implementing the law. During that
period eight parts for judicial proceedings were necessary which are stated as follows:
-
·
King
·
Judge
·
Assessor
·
Law
books
·
Accountant
·
Scribe
·
Gold
and Fire Ordeal
·
And
water
Here the trial was conducted first by
the local assemblies and the punishment that is awarded by these courts is very
severe. The criminals are imprisoned for life or outcasted, depending on the
seriousness of the crime the severity of the punishment increases.
British era
After the onset of the British
colonial periods for India, all this changed entirely with the introduction of
their English common law; a period was set down and preceded by the
establishment of modern courts and procedures; however, problems were also
synthesized during this period. It was very sophisticated but worked in an
utterly alien manner to the Indian masses, not even in rural regions. Trials
were tardy, often because of the inefficiencies of bureaucratic machinery; the
colonial administration, keen on upholding law and order, was not as keen on the
speedy provision of justice. The trials lasted for years; the prime accused too
languished in prisons for years, including those belonging to the deprived
sections of society.[3]
Even as the British legal system
thought everyone was entitled to trials within the shortest and swiftest time
scale, its application in colonial India was haphazard. The focus was more on
controlling dissent and protecting British interests than on fair, rapid trials
for Indian subjects. It is here that the seeds of a backlog-ridden judiciary
were sown, which continues to pester the Indian legal system today.
Post-Independence: The
Constitutional Mandate and Speedy Trials
This was a feeling of needing to
create an independent judiciary that could indeed protect the rights and
liberties of Indian citizens from the oppressive colonial legal regime. After
India gained independence in the year 1947, it came up with the Constitution in
the year 1950, which contains many such fundamental rights within it. Article
21 of this document guarantees the right to life and liberty. The speed of the
trial has not been mentioned in Article 21.
However, through judicial
interpretation, the Supreme Court has established that it is an integral part
of the right to life and liberty. Many countries in the world have adopted the
concept of fair trial and it can also be seen in international instruments like
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. In Article 10 it
is stated that everyone is entitled to total equality, fair and public hearing
by an independent and a tribunal that is impartial for the determination of his
rights and obligations of any criminal charge against him. Similarly, Article
11 that anyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent
unless proven guilty.[4]
The landmark case that brought forth
the problem of this case was Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of
Bihar, 1979[5].
This case began with the pathetic condition of under-trial prisoners staying in
jail in Bihar jail without being discharged for more years than the maximum
sentence prescribed for the alleged offences for which they were kept in jail. In
one of its stinging indictments of the criminal justice system, the Supreme
Court declared speed of trial a constitutional right implicit in the guarantee
of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Since then, the scope
of Article 21 has grown so dynamically that it has moulded the directions in several
cases dealing with delayed trials.
An interrelated concept of a fair
trial and a speedy trial.
Fair trial is an ideology or concept
that requires both the state as well as its agencies to function together, and
they must produce the accused in the court for trial. Because one cannot
function alone and bring the person who has committed the crime to the eyes of
justice. And only when the trial is conducted fairly and speedily will grant
justice to both the victim and the accused. The objective of having a fair trial
is that human life should be valued no matter whether it is the life of the accused
or the victim, unless and until proven guilty the accused should not be
punished.
Any democratic legal system forth
incorporates a fair trial. This would mean the person suspected of committing a
crime would be allowed to be fairly and openly heard in a court in all the
protection modalities that exist under the law. Protection against undue
detention applies for purposes of more than just the prevention of detention
but instead the delivery of justice without undue delay.
Again, the burden of proof for crime
rests with the prosecution and the rule of innocent until proven guilty beyond
all means. It is a fact that long years of trial delay the credibility of
evidence and testimony regarding a witness often becomes weak, paving the way
to dubious verdicts. The delay also brings undue hardship to the accused person
psychologically and socially. Further, the process itself-justice
system-efficiency and credibility are sullied when there is undue delay in the
trials accompanied by erosion of trust among the public in the legal process.
Pre-trial detention and its effects
on speedy trials
One of the biggest challenges to
efficient speedy trials is pre-trial detention. At present, as of the 2023
reports, nearly 75% of India's prison population is composed of undertrial
prisoners who have been locked up for years without being convicted. Such
over-reliance on the use of pre-trial detention before magisterial hearings is
violative of the principle that bail, not jail, should be the norm unless there
is a great flight risk or likelihood of interfering in the investigation.[6]
In only a few judgments, the Supreme
Court had focused specifically on 'Reducing Pre-Trial Detention'. Just recently
in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2014[7],
the Apex Court had provided the directive that no police officer can arrest
anyone for an offence that may invite imprisonment for seven years. It may
decide, after preliminary inquiry, whether the arrest is required or not. The
idea was to prevent the overuse of cases of arrest and detention, commonly
found at various jails waiting for trial for a much more prolonged period.
Beyond
Trial: When Judgment is Late, Well Past Overdue
The right to a speedy trial does not
culminate with the judgment. The post-trial rights are also important,
particularly the right to an appeal within a reasonable time. In the case of Vakil
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar (2009), the Supreme Court also extended the
principle of speedy trials to the appellate stage by observing that delay in
appeals relates to denying justice[8].
The Court held that the right to speedy trial includes all stages of the case and
must be just and fair.
Post-Conviction Rights: Betting
Justice with Justice
It does not mean merely when a trial
comes to an end. It includes post-trial stages also like, appealing to a higher
court, which is not exempted from unreasonable delay. The Supreme Court in Vakil
Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar held that the right of speedy trial is
available not only at the stage of trials but at every stage of judgments in
appeals and revisions. Indeed, the delay is as prejudicial at the stage of
appeal as it is prejudicial at the trial stage itself. Deprivation for an
accused of certainty be it for long, and denigration of the efficacy of the judicial
process due to delays are damaging.
Legal Framework for Speedy Trial in
India
It is prominent in the Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), India has legislation in its legal system that
ensures the right to a speedy trial. The CrPC, 1973 has numerous time limits
for various phases of judicial procedure. In summons cases, that is to say,
cases in respect of which the summons would suffice and where no arrest appears
to be contemplated Section 167 CrPC provides that such investigation cannot
continue beyond six months from the date of arrest of the accused or the person
apprehended as an accused. The investigation must be carried out within such a
stipulated time frame. Otherwise, the Magistrate has to put a stop further to
the investigation in this case since exceptional circumstances exist where
sufficient cause can be shown for extending the time.
Moreover, Section 167(2) CrPC
provides for such that no person can be held in detention for an indefinitely
long period.[9]. The
CrPC provides for the mandatory detention of the accused for a period not
exceeding 90 days when the investigation relates to an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life; otherwise, it is for a period not exceeding 60
days in every other case. Such periods, once they expire, mean that a suspect
must be bailed out if she or he is willing and able to do so. Such a reason
hinges on the protection against arbitrary and prolonged detention since no law
enforcement body is allowed to hold a person detained without just cause being
established.
Now recently the year-old CrPC has
been replaced by the new act The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (2023) this
is to avoid the delay in justice. It has been decades and there are new ranges
of crimes that are arising in the modern era, so to deal with modern issues a
modern act is necessary and modern procedures have to be followed. It has only
been a few months since the implementation of the new Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita its effectiveness will be seen in the future and if needed changes
are to be made to make sure a fair trial is conducted speedily.
Supreme
Courts the Key Judicial Interpretations for Speedy Trials.
What has been important for the
Supreme Court to have contributed to expanding the right to a speedy trial is
through the interpretations it gave to Article 21. It was an important
milestone that the Hussainara Khatoon case mentioned above brought about there
have been several other landmark judgments that have contributed towards
creating the Indian Fast Trial scenario.
Sheela Barse v. Union of India, 1986, the Supreme Court emphasized the
requirement of speedy trials, particularly when the accused turns out to be a
juvenile.[10]. The
Court finally considered the fact that there must also be a trial in the case
of juveniles so that they are not detained for long-drawn psychological
wrangles and their rights are protected as well. This case emphasised greater
ramifications of slow-moving processes involving sensitive segments.
The other landmark case is Raj Deo
Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998) wherein the Supreme Court has repeated once
again that the trial courts should take measures that the trial should
reasonably take time[11].
In the said case, it was held that the prosecution was not allowed to produce
the relevant evidence within the stipulated time frame as the accused was
entitled to his discharge from the case. This made statutory a burden on the
prosecution to ensure that the trials were conducted without an inordinate delay
adding teeth to the right to a speedy trial.
Some Recent
Developments and Issues
Despite such judicial intervention
measures, the issue of delayed trials is, in reality, haunting the Indian legal
system. Statistics available in the National Judicial Data Grid as of 2023
portray a scenario where more than 4 crore cases are pending in Indian courts,
most of whom are under-trial prisoners. Such numbers are entrapped more from
procedural delays, which become all-pervasive factors when there are myriad
other factors, including a congested judiciary, shortcomings at various levels
in judicial positions, and the lack of proper infrastructure in the system.[12]
The COVID-19 pandemic presented
another pressure that the system had to undergo, leading to adjournments and
delays that dragged on for greater times and durations. Virtual courts adopted
during this period, however, provide new avenues to reduce future delays.
Technology can be harnessed to hasten some judicial processes which otherwise
will serve as a light at the end of the tunnel to curb pendency and to enhance
speedy justice.
After the pandemic and after many years
of war against speedy trials the justice system in our country can bring
virtual court telecasts. By making the telecast it will help everyone to
understand what is happening inside the court and whether justice is provided
in a speedy and fast manner. Due to this concept, the delay that was happening
before in the country in the trial process won't happen again. All the
proceedings happening in all the courts shall be made public, this will ensure a
fair trial and speedy justice.
Proposals for reform
Among these reforms, several can be
discussed over the issue of delayed trials:
1. Enhancement of Judicial Capacity: The
Government should enhance judicial capacity at all the tiers of the judiciary
in such a way that cases are heard and disposed of within the longest
reasonable time.
2. Reforming the Legal Aid Systems:
Under-trial prisoners do not receive proper legal representation. The
representatives are usually unskilled and incapable of handling the case remarkably;
hence, this normally delays for a long time. Reformation of the legal aid
systems would ensure speedy and efficient trials.
3. Technical Integration: The
application of artificial intelligence and machine learning in case management
systems can greatly reduce the number of administrative procedures that would
be undertaken by courts through the utilization of a large amount of time.
4. Cases monitoring with regularity-
Under trial prisoners should be monitored regularly by judicial officers and,
for those which take a long time like delaying justice delivery, there can be a
review of pending cases by judicial officers with regularity.
5. Accountability for Delays: High
courts must enforce tighter time frames for management and unreasonable delays
must be questioned. To this effect, agencies and prosecutors need to be called
to account regarding their undue delay of case proceedings.
Conclusion
It is a long way to a swift trial on
the journey but stands as such an unconquerable fortress of justice. Justice
Bhagwati observes somewhere: "Delay in itself can be said to amount to a denial
of justice." Doubtless, the right of a citizen to trial within a
reasonable time under the constitution was quite enough recognized and
reasserted through judicial interpretations. Its actual enforcement has
continued to face grave challenges anew and anew in the land of India.
At its heart lies a fundamental
tension between the rights of the accused versus the requirement of an effective
and just investigation. The legal framework which is supposed to prevent undue
delay exists. However, at a very structural level, it is unable to function
based on the law implemented by agencies involved in the administration of the law.
Radical reform in those practices is indeed what will ensure that justice is a
living, breathing reality for every citizen and not some in philosophical
theory deal for some. For soon enough, quick trials are not a matter merely of
speed but of the essence of justice itself.
References:
Books
1. The Indian Constitution: Cornerstone
of a Nation" by Granville Austin (1999) - This classic work might have
relevant sections on the right to speedy trial.
2. "Constitutional Law of India: A
Critical Commentary" by H.M. Seervai (2015) - While not solely about
speedy trials, this comprehensive work likely covers the topic.
3. Human Rights in India: Issues and
Perspectives" edited by A. Subramanyam Raju (2016) - Likely includes a
chapter on the right to speedy trial.
4. "Delayed Justice: Judicial
Reform in India" by Arun Mohan (2017)
5. "The Indian Judicial System:
Reform and Revamp" by Arghya Sengupta (2022)
Journals
1. Published by the West Bengal National
University of Juridical Sciences, it covers diverse legal topics.
2. Indian Journal of Human Rights
[1] Jhanvi Bansal, Justice Delayed
Is Justice Denied vs. Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried, JUS CORPUS (July
6, 2022), https://www.juscorpus.com/justice-delayed-is-justice-denied-vs-justice-hurried-is-justice-buried/.
[2] Justice Delayed Is Justice
Denied: An In-Depth Analysis, THE LAW ADVICE (July 9, 2022), https://www.thelawadvice.com/articles/justice-delayed-is-justice-denied-an-in-depth-analysis.
[3] M.P. Jain, The Indian Legal
System: An Enquiry Into Its Structure and Development (2d ed. 1972).
[4] G.A. Res. 217 (III) A, Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, arts. 10-11 (Dec. 10, 1948).
[5] Hussainara Khatoon v. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 (India).
[6] JOHN DOE, CRIMINAL JUSTICE IN
INDIA: CHALLENGES AND REFORMS 123 (2nd ed. 2023).
[7] Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
2014
[8] Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of
Bihar, (2009) 3 SCC 355 (India).
[9] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
§ 167(2), No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 1974 (India).
[10] Sheela Barse v. Union of India,
1986
[11] Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar,
7 SCC 507 (S.C. 1998)
[12] PRIYA SHARMA, THE INDIAN JUDICIAL
SYSTEM: CHALLENGES AND REFORMS 87 (Oxford University Press, 3d ed. 2023).