Understanding the Supreme Court’s stance on the right to a speedy trial

Another incident highlighting the state of delay in the administration of justice came from the Jammu and Kashmir High Court when the court expressed its displeasure when informed that an accused had been in judicial custody for eighteen years, while the examination of prosecution witnesses had not yet been completed. The HC proceeded to grant bail and noted that it was a “clear-cut case of violation of Article 21 on account of delayed trial.”

It is a well-known fact that Indian courts are heavily overburdened, resulting in a significant number of undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for extended periods, with the conclusion of their trial nowhere in sight. Several reasons contribute towards delays in a trial: Lack of availability of counsel leading to multiple adjournments, non-availability of witnesses, the presiding judge being on leave, judicial vacancies, transfer of the presiding judge, and a heavy caseload are a few common ones. To give a clearer picture of the state of undertrial prisoners, data from the National Crime Records Bureau’s (NCRB) Prison Statistics India 2022 Report reveals that in 2022, out of the total number of 5,73,220 prisoners, 4,34,302 prisoners were undertrials, which accounts for over 75% of the entire prison population in the country.

The significant delay in the completion of trials is one of the most serious concerns facing India’s justice system. The SC has, through various judgements, held and reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution of India. In the landmark decision of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), the apex court held that the “concept of the speedy trial was read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution”.

The fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial was first recognised by the SC in  Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), with the Court ruling that the State was under a “constitutional mandate” to provide the same. It was further noted that from the lists of under-trial prisoners produced before the bench, there have been prisoners in jail for periods longer than the maximum term for which they could have been sentenced, if convicted. The court went on to observe how this revealed a shocking state of affairs and utter disregard for human values, rightly commenting that “it exposes the callousness of our legal and judicial system which can remain unmoved by such enormous misery and suffering resulting from totally unjustified deprivation of personal liberty.”

The Court reaffirmed the importance of this right in Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986), by holding that it is a clear violation of the defendant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial if the case remains pending for an unreasonable length of time. The Court went on to hold that the result of such a violation would be that the prosecution’s case itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is in breach of this fundamental right.

The scope of this right was further expanded in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1991) wherein the Court held that all stages, investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial were encompassed under this right. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002), the SC identified the major factors to determine whether the accused in a criminal proceeding had been deprived of his right to have a speedy trial with unreasonable delay. These are namely, the length of delay, the justification for the delay, the assertion of a right to a speedy trial by the accused, and prejudice caused to the accused by such delay.

Two major steps taken to address the state of undertrial prisoners include the introduction of section 436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), now section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This provision laid down that during the investigation or trial, if half of the maximum term of sentence an undertrial prisoner would have served if convicted has been completed, the prisoner has the right to apply for bail. In such an instance, the court has the option of releasing the prisoner on bail or personal bond with or without surety. 

The second is the establishment of fast track courts (FTCs) under state governments in consultation with the respective High Courts for expeditious disposal of cases. Similarly, the centrally sponsored fast track special courts (FTSCs) were set up for a swifter dispensation of justice for specific matters such as rape and cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

Notably, the new criminal codes that went into effect on July 1 have introduced certain provisions presumably to ensure the disposal of cases in a time-bound manner. Section 258(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has introduced a time period for the pronouncement of judgment by providing that the judge shall give a judgment within thirty days, extendable up to forty-five days with reasons recorded in writing, from the date of completion of arguments. Further, Section 251(1)(b) of the BNSS, which provides for the framing of charges for a trial before a Sessions Court, now requires the Court to frame charges within sixty days from the date of the first hearing on the charge.

The right to a speedy trial acts as an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration. Further, as with time memories fade and recalling details accurately becomes increasingly difficult for witnesses, a defendant’s case can weaken significantly. The fact that there exists a right which guarantees that the trial must not take an unreasonable amount of time protects the defendant’s capacity to conduct a sound defence; thus, in turn, safeguarding the overall integrity and fairness of the trial.

Avanti Deshpande is a lawyer and researcher. Her interests include human rights law, criminal law, and gender justice. The views expressed are personal