The article has been written by Mr. Rajdeep Hembram, a 1st year LLM student from University Law College, Hazaribagh, JharkhandIntroduction

It was a landmark judgement of Supreme Court on March 9, 1979 . It is the first PIL ( public interest litigation)  By this judgement it given a broader edge to Article 21 and stated that everyone has the right to a prompt trial. The Supreme court stated that  the state must provide free legal assistance and a quick trial to administer justice. Earlier also Supreme court of India had given various judgement on the Article 21 but this was the first PIL case which was filled by Advocate Hingorani.

List of some of the article 21 landmark judgement are :-

1. Kharak Singh v. the state of UP and others- 

Ratio decidendi- The right to privacy is included in the right to life.

1. Sunil Batra v. Delhi administration

Ratio decidendi – In this Supreme court held that fatal cuffs are unconstitutional for a convicted person because it is an inhuman behaviour with the prisoners and it is violative of article 21.

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

Ratio decidendi – In this the right to travel abroad as a very important component of right to liberty, if this right is not granted liberty is distorted. By this judgement the court increased the scope of article 21 of the Constitution and made it the duty to interpret article 21 in a manner which serves the people’s interest at most. 

What Article 21 of Indian Constitution says ?

• According to Article 21 “ protection of life & liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.”
• Article 21 includes Right to life, Right to personal liberty, Right to privacy which was included after a landmark judgement by a nine judge bench of the Supreme court in the case Justice K.S. Puttaswamy ( Retd) v. Union of India on 24 Aug, 2017.
• Supreme court also described right to life as “ the heart of Fundamental Right” in Unni Krishnans case.

The fact of the case

1. The case focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under trial prisoners.
2. A writ petition habeas corpus was filed before the court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
3. The under-trial prisoners whose name are set out in the chart filed by advocate Mrs. Hingorani ( have in jail for period longer than the maximum term). 
4. This PIL was filled by an Advocate on the basis of a news report highlighting the plights of thousands of under trial prisoners languishing in various jails.
5. It had led to a chain of proceedings resulting in the release of over 40,000 under trial prisoners.
6. After this case, the Supreme court has defined the right to speedy justice as a basic fundamental right that has been denied to the prisoners.

Issue Raised

1. Whether the supply of free legal aid be enforced by law ?
2. Whether right to speedy trial come within the ambit of Article 21 ?
3. What’s the essence of speedy trial under criminal justice ?

Petitioner’s Argument

1. The petitioner averred that the under trial prisoner had been incarcerated number of men, woman, children were kept behind bars without being tried in the court of law. They have been languishing in the jail for charges which even if were true could not abstract punishment for more than a year.
2. In the counter affidavit the respondents submitted that many under trial prisoners petitioners who were, confined in the Patna central jail the Muzaffarpur central jail and the Ranchi central jail prior to their release had been regularly produced before the magistrate and thereby were remanded again and again to judicial custody by the magistrates. However the court didn’t find this averment to be true as the respondents were unable to produce the dates on which these under trial prisoners were remanded.   

Supreme court’s judgement

The bench consisting of Justice P.N Bhagwati, Justice A.D Koshal, Justice R.S Pathak made an immediate release of prisoners after a PIL of Habeas Corpus.

 Court says that :-

1. A procedure which keeps large number of people behind bars without trial for long cannot possibly be regarded as “ reasonable just or fair”. 
2. Speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and therefore delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice.
3. If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not “reasonable fair or just” such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 and would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release.
4. Court also cited case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
5. Expeditious trial & freedom from detention are part of human rights and basic freedoms. The judicial system which permits incarceration of men & women for long periods of time without trial is denying human rights to such under trials and withholding basic freedoms from time.
6. This system of bails operates very harshly against the poor and it is only the non-poor who are able to take advantage of it by getting themselves released on bail. The poor find it difficult to furnish bail even without sureties because very often the amount of the bail fixed by the court is so unrealistically excessive.
7. Court also stated that there is non compliance of criminal procedure code i.e. Section 436A.

436A states that maximum period for which an undertrial can be detained, where a person has during the period of investigation, inquiry or trial under this code of an offence under any law( not being an offence for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the punishments under that law ) undergone detention for a period extending up to one half of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for that offence under that law he shall be released in personal bond with or without sureties.

Case Analysis

As per Article 3 of the European convention on Human Rights “ no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. And also Article 21 of Indian Constitution working on same concept by this the court held that a person who has been arrested or imprisoned has the right to a trial within a reasonable time and speedy trial is essential to criminal Justice.

The court highlighted many point like if a person is arrested if he poor and cant able to defend itself then he should be given free legal aid then only it would amount to justice and proper running of legal system. And also it would fulfil the article 21. Otherwise it would be violative of fundamental right.

Court also pointed out various point which should be consider while granting personal bond bail, the accused’s root in the community must be examined. The points are :-

1. The length of his stay in the neighbourhood .
2. The job status, background and financial situation as well as his family & relationship.
3. The character, mental state and reputation.
4. The criminal record as well as his appearances in the court.
5. The names of respectable community people who might attest for his trustworthiness.
6. The nature of the alleged crime and the likelihood of conviction.

Conclusion

On the above discussion and analysis the importance of Public Interest Litigation was highlighted during this case. On the other hand this writ petition become voices for those who are deprived category of the society. There are many poor who are imprisoned for so many years in fact more than the sentence as well as some are not getting bail because of poor finance, this shows that justice mechanism is not working properly. Lawyers are for those who are rich but poor are lacking behind though they have free legal aid and state has the duty to provide but there also justice fails.

However this case inspired several lawyers to speak on behalf of the poor and given broad scope to Public Interest Litigation.

References

1. Case law of Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar

https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/HUSSAINARA-KHATOON-V-Home-Secretary-STATE-OF-BIHAR

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1007347/