This article has been written by Ms. Samruddhi Shastri, studying in II year B.A, LL. B (H) from CMR University, School of Legal Studies, Bangalore.   

INTRODUCTION

Fundamental rights are the basic human rights that are regarded to be crucial to safeguard the rights and liberties of the people against the intrusion of the power delegated by them to the state. In the Indian context, these fundamental rights stand for the basic ideals revered by the people of this country since the Vedic times, and such that they are designed to uphold human dignity and foster atmospheres that allow each person to express their distinct personality to the fullest. They establish “a pattern of guarantee” on the basic structure of human rights and inflict negative functions on the state not to encroach on individual liberty in any of its dimensions. Hence, these are essential rights as they are the most crucial for the full attainment of the intellectual, moral, and spiritual potential of an individual. 

One such essential right is provided under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which states that – ‘No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law”.  This article guarantees every individual the right to life and personal liberty. However, there arose a lot of issues regarding the interpretation of this article due to which the judiciary had to intervene and look into the scope of this article. As a result of Judicial activism, the scope of Article 21 has been widened to a larger extent through various landmark judgments. Hence, the term ‘life’ has been provided with a very expansive meaning, and as well the term ‘personal liberty’ has been given a very wide magnitude including a variety of rights that constitute personal liberty of citizens such that its deprivation shall be according to the relevant procedure established by the law, wherein the procedure established has to be just, fair, and reasonable. 

One of the well-known judgments which gave a wider interpretation to Article 21 by including the “Right to Speedy Trial” as a Fundamental Right under the Right to Life and Personal Liberty was Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar. This case emphasized on the need for Speedy trial and free legal aid for the effective administration of justice and highlighted that Speedy Trial is a part of the reasonable, fair, and just procedure guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

Court: The Honourable Supreme Court of India;

Bench: Justice Bhagwati P.N, Justice Pathak R.S, Justice Koshal A.D;

Citation: 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The Indian Express, an Indian news media publishing company published an article on the detention of under-trial convicts in the Bihar jail. These prisoners had been imprisoned for a very long period of time which was much longer than the actual span of incarceration. On reading this article Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani filed a writ of Habeas Corpus before the apex court under Article 32 of the Constitution. This writ petition prayed for the release of 17 under-trial convicts who have been detained for a prolonged period of time. 

This case showcased the miserable conditions of the judicial administrative system in the state of Bihar. There were a huge number of people put behind bars including women, children, and other people who belonged to the poor and underprivileged sections of society. These individuals spent years behind bars while awaiting trial in a court of law, which was of much longer span than compared to the punishment which they would have been awarded if the offense committed by them was proven. So, the state of Bihar was asked to file a revised chart depicting the year-wise break up of prisoners by segregating them into two categories as follows – those charged with minor offenses, and those charged with major offenses. However, this order was not followed and so no such charts were presented by the state before the court of law. 

This petition also highlighted the need for free legal aid to those prisoners who are too poor to afford a lawyer because these people would otherwise have to undergo trial without legal assistance which would not be just, fair, and reasonable. Hence, this case highlighted the lacunae in the criminal justice system and urged for the provision of speedy trial and legal assistance to uphold the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 

ISSUES

The issues raised in the case are as follows-

• What is the essence of the Speedy Trial under the Administration of the Criminal Justice System in India?
• Can the Right to Speedy Trial be included under the ambit of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution?
• Can the supply of free legal assistance be enforced by law under Article 21 of the Constitution?

ARGUMENTS

It was contended by the petitioner that these prisoners were put behind the bars without any trial being conducted. This made them suffer in jail for long years on those charges which if proven to be committed would not have attracted punishment for such a long span of time. 

The respondents stated that the prisoners herein confined to the prison of Patna, Ranchi, and Muzaffarpur jail have been produced before the magistrate occasionally and were awarded judicial custody repeatedly. Further, it was also stated by the respondents that the number of pending cases increased due to the delay in receiving the stance of the professional experts. 

The court however did not accept the arguments of the respondents because the respondents failed to provide the data regarding the dates with respect to the former argument. Further, to the latter one, the court felt that the state could have implemented an alternative mechanism to deal with the same. 

JUDGEMENT

The Hon’ble Court delivered the judgement in favour of the petitioners and ordered for the immediate release of the prisoners. The court held that “The under-trial prisoners whose names are listed in the petition filed by the advocate for the petitioners have been detained in jail for a longer period which may have exceeded the maximum term that could have been imposed on them if found guilty”. 

The bench further found that the current custodial system has violated basic human rights thereby exposing the inefficiency and loopholes in the system of judicial administration. This case has also highlighted the insensitive legal and judicial administration which has resulted in the suffering of a large number of individuals thereby depriving them of personal liberty and the right to a dignified life. 

The court further found the failure of the state government in supervising the prisons and looking after the conditions of the prisoners therein. The state government has been ignorant towards the under-trial prisoners and their illegal detention for a long period of time. The bench further pointed towards the failure of the judiciary in the state because it cannot justify the fact that it was unaware of the confinement of thousands of undertrial prisoners who were waiting for the trials which never seem to take place. 

Hence, the court held that detaining a large number of prisoners for a prolonged period of time violated the principle of “just, reasonable, and fair” imbibed in Article 21 of the Constitution. The court further widened the scope of Article 21 and held that the protection available under this article applies even to the safeguarding of the fundamental rights of the prisoners. It is noteworthy that the court remarked that the convicts are also human beings and so until they are hanged (if awarded death punishment), they have to be treated as human beings and not as slaves. Therefore, they must be entitled to live in jail with dignity and not be treated inhumanely or barbarously.    

The court further held that “Right to speedy trial” is a fundamental right that is implicit under the Right to Life and Personal Liberty guaranteed under Article 21. Justice Bhagwati stated, “Although the right to speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned to be a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India ”. Hence, the court held Speedy trial to be the essence of Criminal Justice and so the procedure which does not render a reasonably quick trial cannot be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair, or just’. 

The court further highlighted the need for providing free legal aid to those accused who are unable to engage a lawyer and secure legal services. It was held that it is the constitutional right of every accused person to have free legal services when he is incapable of securing legal service on his own due to poverty, indigence, or any other justified reasons. The court also stated that it is the duty of the state to provide legal assistance to those accused persons who are in need of it. If in case the state doesn’t provide legal aid if the need for justice so requires then the trial may be regarded as violative of Article 21.

The bench thus widened the scope of Article 21 by extending protection to the accused in jail and directing the state to implement reforms in the judicial system. It further upheld the principle of humanity as well as equality by considering Speedy Trials and Free Legal aid under the ambit of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty. Hence, the court on being provided with the evidential circumstances of the poor legal and judicial system highlighted the need for reform in the administration of the criminal justice system. Thus, the court ordered the Bihar government to release the undertrial prisoners immediately. 

RATIO DECIDENDI

Any individual detained has the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time. It is therefore, the hon’ble court regarded speedy trial to be essential to criminal justice, and so a delay in trial alone can lead to denial of justice.

The Fundamental Rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution safeguard the rights and liberty of each and every individual under all circumstances except according to the procedure established by law. It is therefore, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution protects the life and personal liberty of individuals except in accordance with the procedure established by law such that it is reasonable, fair, and just. Further, Article 39A being the directive principle emphasizes on free legal assistance as an inviolable feature and so the absence of it results in the denial of justice which is violative of the principles of “just, fair, and reasonable” procedure. The court, therefore, highlighted the need for free legal assistance that would bring efficiency in the legal system. 

The court further acknowledged the worsened conditions of the under-trial prisoners awaiting trial for years which depicted the urgent need for reformation in the judicial system. The facts of the case highlighted that the accused who were poor couldn’t manage to afford a lawyer and so couldn’t apply for bail or get legal assistance. It is noteworthy that even a few of the prisoners were innocent and had committed no crime, yet were put behind the bars and detained illegally. This violated their human rights as well. So, the court found it necessary that these issues need to be resolved. Hence, the court emphasized speedy trial and free legal assistance to be essential factors so as to bring efficiency to the legal system and safeguard the rights of all. 

ANALYSIS

It is essential to conduct fair trials for those accused of criminal offenses as it forms the bedrock of democracy. A ‘fair trial’ is the soul of criminal jurisprudence and so is an important aspect of a democratic federation that is governed by the Rule of Law. The objective of every fair trial is to grant the fairest opportunity to the accused so that he can prove his innocence. Further, Speedy trial is a right of the accused which is in the interest of justice. It is the obligation of the trial courts to ensure that there is speedy trial so that the right of the accused is protected. Hence, a fair trial implies speedy trial.

There is a well-known maxim “Justice delayed is justice denied” which means when justice or legal redress is not provided in the appropriate time even though it was available, then it is as same as denying justice although it is awarded at some point in time later because it was not provided when needed. This maxim appropriately applies in this case. 

As mentioned earlier, fair trial and speedy trial are essential for an accused to prove his innocence but when this opportunity is not provided at an appropriate time, it is nothing but the denial of justice. The landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar seems to be a true example of the maxim mentioned above. The state ignored the condition of prisoners as well as the administration of justice. Many of the accused were innocent and hadn’t committed any crime yet were detained illegally. The justice system also turned a blind eye to the ineffectiveness of the administration of the criminal system. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has again proved to safeguard and protect the rights of individuals by upholding justice in this case. The court acknowledged that there was a violation of fundamental rights due to social and economic inequality and so expanded the ambit of Article 21 thereby bringing reform in the administration of the criminal justice system. The case was also recognized to be one of the first PIL that was moved to the court of law. 

The Hon’ble Court has made various observations that led to developmental changes in the system of criminal administration. A few of the observations are as follows – 

• It recognized the need for fair and speedy trials. It felt the necessity to change the way of pre-trial confinement which would be reasonable enough to uphold the rights of the accused. 
• The delay in justice in itself is a violation of basic rights. Although the speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right it must be implicitly acknowledged to be a basic right under Article 21.
• The detention of individuals for a longer period of time without trial is violative of human rights and basic freedoms.
• The court also focused on the social and economic inequality prevailing in society which has been a major drawback that hinders an efficient judicial system. The accused who are rich avail the benefit with the use of money however, those who are poor are deprived of rights and judicial benefits although they may have been innocent but failed to prove not guilty. 
• The court also observed that poor sections of society have not been given proper attention. It was felt that the background of the accused has to be looked upon and then the personal bond should be given if needed. 

Hence, the court has focused on most of the lacunae in the judicial system. The bench has tried its best to interpret the laws in such a way that it fulfills the true essence of the constitution. Further, the bench found the necessity to bring reforms in the judicial system so that justice should be provided to all those who are in need of it. Thus, this case led to various reforms in the upcoming years resulting in the upholding of individual freedom and liberty. 

CONCLUSION

Each and every human being is inherited with certain basic rights for the sole purpose of being born as a human. These rights are inalienable and universal and can’t be violated except in accordance with those procedures which are just and reasonable. However, when a person commits an offense he must be punished for his deeds but he must be given a fair opportunity to prove his innocence because there may be circumstances wherein the person accused may not be the real culprit. So, an effective and efficient judicial system should ensure a fair and speedy trial that protects the innocent and punishes the wrongdoer. 

The judgement in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar highlighted the lacunae in the administration of criminal justice systems in India. It showcased how innocent people were illegally detained thereby violating their rights which was an offense by the state toward its subjects. The bench, however, focused on bringing reforms in the judicial administration so that the mistake committed by the state against the individuals in prison would not recur in the future. This judgement is so significant because it led to the release of a huge number of prisoners who were either innocent or had committed minimal offences which would not have attracted severe punishments. This case has given a new interpretation to Article 21 which resulted in the safeguarding of the rights of individuals in prison. The bench also tried to provide fair and equitable justice to all that would benefit a huge number of individuals irrespective of their economic or social status. 

Thus, the court brought remarkable changes in the administration of the criminal justice system thereby upholding the principle of equity and equality to ensure that no individual is deprived of his or her basic fundamental and human rights.

REFERENCES

1. M. P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (LexisNexis 2022).
2. J. N. Pandey, Constitutional Law of India (Central Law Agency 2022).
3. Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1373215/.html
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.
5. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
6. AK Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27.
7. Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2009 SC 1822.
8. Rattiram v. State of MP, AIR 2012 SC 1485.
9. P Sanjeev Rao v. State of AP, AIR 2012 SC 2242.

Aishwarya Says:

The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.

If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems to secondinnings.hr@gmail.com

Join our  Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening