CITATION: 1979 AIR 1369
CORUM: JUSTICE P N BHAGAWATI, JUSTICE R S PATHAK, JUSTICE A D KOSHAL
[THIS CASE COMMENTARY HAS BEEN WRITTEN BY MS PAYODHI DASCHAUDHURI, A 2ND YEAR LLB STUDENT FROM SCHOOL OF LAW AND JUSTICE, ADAMAS UNIVERSITY]
INTRODUCTION
In criminal law, the right to a quick trial is a human right that states that a government prosecutor may not prolong a criminal suspect’s trial arbitrarily and indefinitely. Even if the criminal is accused of committing some very heinous crimes, he/she has a fundamental right to get represented in the court and get full access to a speedy trial. Not only this, Once the court has determined that the accused has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence provided to it, it must decide on the quantity of punishment that should be granted to the prisoner and the convict should face only the decided quantum of punishment and not more than that. Contrary to this, facing more than the desired quantum of punishment would not only hamper the convict’s very fundamental Right to Life and Personal Liberty but this will prove to be a disgrace to the supremacy and justice serving magnitude of the judiciary system. Not only this, but the Indian Judiciary system also doesn’t discriminate among have’s and have not’s and hence the provision of Free Legal Aid has rightly been incorporated into the legal system for the economically deprived class which upholds the essence of just and reasonable procedure.
Hussainara Khatoon vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar is a landmark decision that emphasized the necessity of speedy justice as a component of a fair trial, thereby expanding the scope of article 21. This case also highlighted the significance of free legal assistance for the weaker sections of society in order to safeguard their right to be defended in court by an advocate, as guaranteed by Article 39A. Every individual has the right to a fast and just trial, and the state does not discriminate against individuals based on caste, religion, gender, or place of birth. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which includes the right to life and personal liberty, makes it the State’s responsibility to ensure that every accused person has a prompt trial. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, Justice Bhagwati remarked that the term “personal liberty” has the broadest scope and encompasses a variety of rights that constitute a man’s personal liberty. At times, the judiciary witnesses certain circumstances where grave injustice has been embodied by hampering the ethos of fundamental rights. In such cases, the core aspect of those rights is being re-assessed and thus interpreted in a much wider context. The above-mentioned case is an example of such situation which went onto become a landmark case in the history of Indian Judiciary concerning the Right to Fair and Speedy Trial and the vitality of Free Legal Aid.
BACKGROUND
The facts of the case revolved around an article which was published in the National Daily of Indian Express in 1979 which elaborately described about the hardships faced by the under-trial prisoners in the correction homes of Bihar. Not only this, a huge number of women and minors were also imprisoned for trivial offences which would actually have resulted into a very few months of incarceration, but they have been in anticipation of justice for years and even some of them were unaware of the reason for their detention. Also, many of the under-trial prisoners were serving the term of prison more than their actual term. Prior to that, the state of Bihar was directed to segregate the prisoners into two categories: those who are accused of minor offences and those who are charged with major offences; but the state failed to comply. Considering all these ambiguities, Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani filed a writ petition of Habeas Corpus to the Supreme Court of India. According to the petition, under trial inmates who have committed minor offences are imprisoned for more than 5-10 years without trial. These folks were impoverished and couldn’t even afford bail. Ab initio, the petition was not subjected to be valid as it lacked the power of attorney and more specifically a client and was based on an article in the Indian Express by Rustomji rather than an affidavit. Staunch opposition was raised by the Registrar’s office stating that the writ petition was filed incorrectly, but the grave persistence of Advocate Hingorani convinced the Hon’ble Supreme Court to constitute a three-judges bench and this case became the first case of Public Interest Litigation in the history of Indian Judiciary. On appearing before the court, the State of Bihar was strictly hostile towards the allegation made by Rustomji in his article and rather it emphasized on imparting the Bihar Government’s mechanical efforts to curb out the loopholes mentioned in the petition regarding the trial of the under-trial prisoners. Hussainara Khatoon was one of six women jailed for an extended amount of time among the 17 undertrial detainees, hence the case’s name.
ISSUES RAISED
The following issues has been raised in the aforementioned case:
- Whether under-trial detainees who have been held longer than their sentence should be freed?
- Whether women be transferred to jails for protective custody?
- Whether the state should provide free legal aid to economically disadvantaged under-trial prisoners as mentioned in Article 39A of the Constitution of India?
- Is Article 21 of the Constitution of India inclusive of Right to Speedy trial?
CONTENTIONS
ARGUMENTS BY THE PETITIONER
According to the appeal, the under-trial prisoners were imprisoned without being tried in a court of law. They had been incarcerated on charges that, even if accurate, could not result in punishment for more than a few years. Many of these inmates were charged with minor offences and sentenced to longer sentences than typical. Another source of their sadness was their poverty, which made even obtaining bail hard. A large number of men, women, and even children were imprisoned for years, awaiting their trials. The offences for which some of the convicts were accused were minor, and even if correct charges had been imposed, the punishment would have been limited to a few months in jail. Moreover, many of those under-trial prisoners were financially deprived as a result of which getting a bail was a herculean task for them. So, the appellants contended to make the provision of free legal aid available to those disadvantaged section of the society and also pleaded before the court to release the prisoners mentioned in Advocate Hingorani’s list stating their detention as illegal and ultra vires to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENTS
The respondents claimed in their counter-affidavit that many of the under-trial prisoners in the case, who do not appeal here, are being held at Patna Central Jail, Muzaffarpur Central Jail, and Ranchi Central Jail, and that prior to their release, they were repeatedly produced before the Magistrates and remanded to judicial custody by the Magistrates. However, the Court rejected the statement since the respondents were unable to identify the dates of incarceration. Furthermore, in order to justify a rise in the number of outstanding cases, the Respondents claimed that, in general, the investigation in the cases must be halted due to a delay in receiving expert opinions. But the court strictly overruled the argument by clearly stating that the state can resort to other alternatives in order to overcome the pertaining loophole.
JUDGEMENT
The Court ordered the release of all under-trial detainees whose names were on the list provided by Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani. The Court also stated that long-term imprisonment would be unconstitutional and would violate their fundamental rights under Article 21 because these inmates are being held for longer than what they could have received if they had been prosecuted and convicted. Another ruling issued by this Hon’ble Court was to provide free legal aid by the State to under-trial convicts accused with bailable charges in the coming days of their trial before the Magistrates. This was done so that even destitute under-trial inmates might petition for bail, and it can even ensure that the goal of a rapid trial is met. The Supreme Court further directed the State Government and High Court to produce information on the location of the courts of magistrates and courts of sessions in the state of Bihar, as well as the total number of cases outstanding in each court as of December 31, 1978.
The judgement brought about some notable observations, First and foremost, it was decided that a legislation that keeps a significant number of convicts behind bars for an extended period of time violates article 21’s guarantee for “just, reasonable, and fair” limits. It emphasized the importance of changing the approach to pre-trial detention and ensuring equitable, reasonable, and fair procedures, which is in line with the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Maneka Gandhi case. Secondly, the apex court strictly mentioned that a fair and speedy trial is one of the vital essences of criminal justice and delay in a fair trial directly implies delay in justice. Though right to speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned in the charter of fundamental rights of Indian Constitution, but has its essence imbibed in the broad interpretation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. A speedy trial, which is a trial that is sufficiently fast, is an essential component of the basic right to life and liberty guaranteed in Art. 21. Furthermore, the court ascribed the delay to the legal and judicial system, which consistently denies justice to the poor by putting them in pretrial custody for extended periods of time, as well as the severely inadequate bail system, which suffers from a property-oriented attitude. It is based on the mistaken notion that the danger of monetary loss is the only deterrent to escaping from justice. Thirdly, the bench stated that the poor element of society should be considered. The court should look into the accused’s past, and if it can be proven that he or she is not capable of fleeing, a personal bond should be given. Only when sufficient evidence and factors are not established to convince the court that such individual would not flee may such person, belonging to the lower sector of society, be required to supply surety. To eliminate the evil effects of poverty and ensure fair and just treatment of the poor in the administration of justice, the bench thus called for a reformation of the bail system. It is imperative that the bail system be thoroughly reformed so that the poor, as easily as the rich, can obtain pretrial release without jeopardizing the interests of justice.
CRITICISMS
Justice is denied when it is delayed. These examples demonstrate and emphasize the importance of every citizen’s right to a quick trial. Many times, a person who is convicted is innocent of the allegations. There were procedural flaws that infringed the rights of the condemned person. Mohammed Ali Bhat, a Kashmiri shawl seller, was arrested by Delhi police in 1996 and imprisoned as an accused in the Lajpat Nagar and Samlethi bomb cases. The Rajasthan High Court just ruled him “not guilty.” According to statistics on Indian jails, 76.1 percent of detainees are awaiting trial, wasting their money in jail without even being found guilty of the crime. Even if they are offered bail, the majority of them cannot afford it since they are extremely impoverished folks. Time spent in jail not only limits their freedom, but it also has a significant influence on their life even after they are released, because society perceives no distinction between an under-trial prisoner and a felon.
One of the most prominent criticisms of the case in the contemporary context is that The right to speedy trial and providing free legal aid to the economically weaker sections of the society is still a far-fetched dream. Recent studies of 2022 have shown that more than 60,000 cases are still pending in the apex court waiting to be heard. Many instances have shown that the accused dies in custody or detention long before his case gets adjudged. On the other hand, a large quantum of rural population is still unaware of the provision of free legal aid for which many a times they cease to take the assistance of law if their rights get hampered. Moreover, the quality of free legal aid is also not satisfactory, and studies have shown that 22.6 percent of beneficiaries said they would not use free legal aid services for the second occasion. Furthermore, 60 percent of women who were aware of free legal aid services decided to hire a private legal practitioner because they wanted more control over their lawyer and lacked faith in the quality of services provided by the legal aid system.
CONCLUSION
The case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar reveals a flaw in the country’s judicial system. Although the right to a speedy trial is a Fundamental Right as stated in our Constitution, this case highlights a flagrant violation of the same, in which undertrial prisoners were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment simply because the courts did not have enough time to acquit or sentence them properly. Some of the detainees were even innocent, yet they were not released and were imprisoned, infringing on basic human rights. Furthermore, the bail system in India is skewed toward impoverished persons who cannot afford the high expenses of litigation. A judicial system that cannot provide justice to the country’s impoverished cannot be considered fair and just. Though speedy trial and free legal aid still couldn’t make their place firm in the Indian Judiciary system, but the scenario is not even worse. According to NALSA, about 8.22 lakh people across India benefited through legal aid services from April 2017 to June 2018. To make the scenario more appealing and successful, more awareness regarding the provision of free legal aid should be circulated among the masses, specially the socially and economically disadvantaged ones. To combat the issue of pending cases in the Indian Judiciary system, more recruitments both in bar and bench should be incorporated. According to Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative’s Report, there are about 1.8 million lawyers in India which means there is one lawyer for every 736 people. There are 61,593 panel lawyers in the country, which translates to just one legal aid lawyer per 18,609 population or five legal aid lawyers per 1,00,000 population. Moreover, magistrates and judges to adjudge the cases are also quite minimum. According to Law Ministry data, India has 19 judges per 10 lakh inhabitants on average, with the judiciary facing a combined deficit of over 6,000 judges, including over 5,000 in the lower courts. The judge-population ratio is 19.49 per million (10 lakh) persons, according to statistics from a paper produced in March for consideration in Parliament. According to the paper, while the subordinate courts are short 5,748 judicial officials, the 24 high courts are short 406 judicial officers. Hence, to improvise the situation, a sharp augment in the bar and bench should be made, else the magnitude of pending cases shall be rising with each passing day. More attorneys like Mrs. Kapila Hingorani are needed so that the downtrodden and needy might have assistance when they raise their voices and are not silenced by superior forces. More significantly, it is each citizen’s responsibility to be informed of his or her legal rights, since vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the law assist those who are vigilant of their rights and not those who sleep over it).
REFERENCE