The pressing need for speedy trials in India

Lord Hewet had rightly quoted that “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done."

In India, due to delay in Justice system, "the situation today is so grim that if a poor is able to reach the stage of a high court, it should be considered as an achievement as per Hon'ble Justice S.P. Singh, a former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Securing legal justice to all citizens is one of the key features of the Indian Constitution. This has been explicitly spelt out in Article 39 A of the Constitution that directs the state "to secure equal justice and free legal aid for all its citizens." In 2011 there were 32 million (3.2 crore) cases pending in the Indian High Courts and subordinate courts while 56,383 cases were pending in the Supreme Court and of these the Supreme Court of India had a total of 39.780 civil and criminal pending cases at the end of year 2011. In 2011 74% of the total 3.2 crore cases were less than five years old. Similarly, 20.334 out of the 56.383 pending cases in the Supreme Court were less than one year old. 

In Martoliajumdar v State of Bihar, the two undertrial prisoners had been in jail for seven years without the filing of charge sheet before the Court Justice Krishna Iyer held it to be violative of Article 21 and directed their release on their own bond without sureties. 

In KadraPahadiya v. State of Bihar, the Court pointed out that the right to speedy trial had remained a paper promise and was completely violated in this case. This case involved the detention of four boys for more than eight years. Further, the Court in KadraPahhdiya v. State of Bihar stated that it had power to give necessary directions to the State Government and appropriate authorities for securing this right to the accused. In one of the most celebrated cases of Speedy Trials, the Court in SheelaBarse v. UOI pointed out that the effect of the violation of the right to Speedy Trial was that the prosecution itself was liable to be quashed. 

Various committees and Law Commission reports have also been pointing out the immeasurable state of affairs of delay in disposing of cases by Indian Judiciary. Quoting Malimath committee. "Taking more than 3 years (sometimes even 10 years) amounts to denying the fair trial.” 

Speedy trial is a right of the accused that begins from Article 21 as held by the Supreme Court. If the accused is being acquitted after such long delays, it is hard to imagine the suffering that he might have been subjected to. Many times such extravagant delay contributes to the acquittal of even the guilty persons either because the evidence is lost by the time of judgment or because of the lapse of time, or the witness happens to forget the details or the witness changes his mind about coming forward to provide truth due to threats, inducement or sympathy. The courts clearly understand that there is a thorough need for speedy trial but inordinate delays still happen to exist.

The biggest reason cited is the huge population of India and its deficiency of judges, which is 15 Judges for every one million people and is lowest in the world. 

The few suggested measures for speedy trials in India are as follows:

1. 6 days/week working of courts with possibly double shift wherever possible.                             

2. Increase age of retirement for Judges to 70 years with extension in SC by another 2 years.

3. One time Short Service Commission for retired Judges for a span of 5 years to manage pendency. 

4 Strict misuse guidelines for top crime cases, to be reviewed every 5 years.

5. Video Audio recording to be made mandatory in all courts.

6. Right to Speedy Justice to be made into a fundamental right with penalties on State for trials lasting more than 5 years. If accused is acquitted after 5 years, accused to be treated as a victim and provided protection by state. 

There is a famous phrase that, “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”. This gains importance when in India at present, there are nearly 19,000 judges, including 18,000 in trial courts who are dealing with a pendency of 3 crore cases. The conditions of pending penal processes in India is distressing. The accused are locked up behind bars and then they have to wait nearly for decades for their trial to begin. Maximum prisons in India are overcrowded and therefore no special care is being taken by the authorities in regard to the condition of the prisoners. In Indian prisons, the basic fundamental human rights are being abnegated in 8 out of 10 cases and as a result, the inmates at prisons face multiple serious physical sufferings. 

Hence there is a need of massive reforms in the country’s penal processes because these days it is a very common practice for the prisoners that were under any sort of trial to undergo several long periods in dark prisons.

In the landmark case decision of Hussain Khatoon v. Home Ministry, Justice P.N. Bhagwati opined in the case that the defendants had under article 21 of the Indian Constitution the right to speedy trial. Concerned about the past time, Justice P.N. Bhagwati’s ruling up roared great media attention and then a massive reconditioning was followed as to how the population of the prison was to have cared. The court’s ruling was based majorly on the United States procedure of Criminal System and also on an earlier case decision of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. 

Delay in penal processes in India also lead to certain mental anguish.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar which formed the basis of the concept of the Speedy Trial, it was held that where undertrial prisoners have been in jail for a duration longer than prescribed, if convicted, their detention in jail is totally unjustified and in violation to fundamental rights under article 21. Inordinate delays violate article 21 of the constitution: for more than 11 yrs the trial is pending without any progress for no faults of the accused-petitioner. Delay in trial unnecessarily confers a right upon the accused to apply for bail. UnderSecc-482 read with 483, Cr.P.C lays down every possible measure to be taken to dispose off the case within 6 months from today. No adjournments to be granted until and unless circumstances are beyond the control of the judiciary. It is the responsibility of the judiciary to keep a check on under trial prisoners and bring them to trial. 

Lastly, it can be concluded that the Right to speedy trial is a right of the accused and it includes all the stages of penal processes namely investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. The judicial capacity and capability is often judged first by the time taken for disposal of the cases. There are many scams and frauds which needs to be disposed off as quick as possible but this is not the case in India.

For e.g. Harshad Mehta scam took about 6years for the pronouncement of the decision when he already died while at the same time a scandal in Singapore Nick Leeson of barring company which was decided in 2 years.

The right to speedy trial is not a dream or fiction but a “Constitutional reality” and it is hight time that it is given the respect it deserves. The courts and the legislature have already accepted it as one of the medium of reducing the increasing workloads on the courts. Repeated delays and prolonged penal processes in the criminal justice system prevents victims from ever reaching emotional, physical, and financial closure to the trauma suffered as a result of the crime(s) perpetrated against them. Such delays in prosecution can also limit the ability of victims to receive justice when their memories, or those of other witnesses, fade with the passage of time or when the victim’s health deteriorates. 

Even though there are no certain or specific provisions for speedy trials, the Supreme Court, by judicial interpretation has referred to article 21 of the constitution to confer the rights on the accused. It is in the interest of all the concerned that the case is disposed off quickly and justice is duly served.