This article has been written by kommula vikram of Lloyd law college
Introduction
Administration of justice includes fair and prompt trials in addition to the conviction of the criminal and exoneration of the innocent. We are all aware that a quick trial is what is required right now. One of the fundamental human rights is the right to a speedy trial because justice cannot be claimed to have been done without one. Almost all international charters and treaties have endorsed it.
Most significantly, one of them—the Civil and Political Rights—was ratified by India on 10 April 1979. (ICCPR). Due to India’s commitments under international law to uphold the Directive Principles of State Policy outlined in Articles 38(1), 39, and 39-A of the Indian s
21 Article
Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no one shall be deprived of his life and liberty except in accordance with law. Protection under Article 21 is available not only to executive actions but also to legislative initiatives. In Munn v. Illinois, the court held that the term “life” means more than the mere existence of an animal.
Justice Bhagwati in Maneka Gandhi’s case observed that:
“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is the widest and covers a number of rights which constitute the personal liberty of a person, some of which have elevated the status of a person. person. separate fundamental rights and additional protection under Article 19.” ”
The terms “Life and Liberty” are very broad terms and when interpreted include a person’s right to a speedy trial. “Life and Liberty” is for the living. Every person has the right to a free and healthy life. As for a victim, he ends up in court for years seeking justice. In the case of the accused, he will remain behind bars awaiting trial for years. We all know that the accused is not guilty until proven guilty. In both cases, the parties in the trial. Such delay in the procedure violates their right to life and personal liberty and causes mental anguish. Their worry, anxiety, cost and disruption due to unnecessary delay should be minimized.
Section 21 of the Constitution ensures that no one can be deprived of his life and personal freedom in a way other than the procedure established by law. In 1978, the Supreme Court said in the Maneka Gandhi case that two conditions are necessary to take away the life and liberty of a person:
There should be a law and
The law should be “reasonable”, “just”. and only’.
A procedure to deprive a person of his liberty established by law cannot be “reasonable, fair or just” if it does not ensure a speedy trial.
Speedy Trial under Article 21
In India, criminal cases take years, sometimes even decades, and if you look at civil cases, the situation is dire. Speedy trial is essential to protect against wrongful conviction and unjustified and oppressive imprisonment, and ensures the administration of justice by providing a fair trial to all its citizens. After two decades of independence, the courts were less concerned about a defendant’s time in prison, but insisted that the prosecution must justify the continuation of the trial. But the post-Emergency Supreme Court recognized the importance of not allowing prisoners to die behind bars and developed fundamental rights not directly mentioned in the Indian Constitution. This included the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the constitution.
Delay in Trial
The main purpose of a speedy trial in the criminal justice system is to ensure justice for the victim and to protect the accused from unnecessary imprisonment before sentencing. Therefore, due to the unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the cases, there was a need for a speedy trial. In 1981, State of Maharashtra Vs. Champalal Punjaji, that in determining whether the right to a speedy trial has been waived, the court is entitled to consider whether the delay was unintentional and caused by undue hardship. abandonment of the court or insufficient number of prosecutors and whether the accused participated in a reasonable amount of time spent in the prosecution. There can be many reasons for delaying judgment. The most popular of them are:
From the side of the judiciary, such as pending lawsuits, court holidays, the relationship between judges and the population, independence of the judiciary.
From the side of the lawyer like pauses, long arguments to impress clients, no case preparation.
Of the accused such as running away, uncooperative behavior etc.
Consequences of delay
The real question before the court was how to determine whether or not a delay was appropriate and, if so, what would be the consequences of such delay. To understand the answer to this question, let’s look at some important decisions of the Supreme Court.
Remedies to be had in case of postpone in proceedings
The proper to a fast trial is a essential proper inherent beneathneath Article 21 of the charter which affords for the proper to lifestyles and private liberties. Our Constitution affords that on every occasion there may be a contravention of essential rights, someone can flow to the Supreme Court beneathneath Article 32 and to the High Court beneathneath Article 226 of the Constitution.
In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, the courtroom docket laid down positive suggestions and held that the powers conferred beneathneath Sections 309, 311 and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will be exercised through the crook courts to effectuate the Right to Speedy Trial. To are trying to find suitable remedy and directions, the jurisdiction of the High Court beneathneath Section
82 of Cr. P.C. and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution may be invoked.
So, if we see from the pinnacle to the lowest of the article, we will see that on occasion the proper to a fast trial become emphasized as being a essential proper beneathneath Article 21 to reconcile justice and equity with many different pursuits which might be compelling and paramount.
The Supreme Court has emphasised the above propositions over and over in its decisions. In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that the idea of fast trial is an crucial a part of Article 21 of our Constitution. This proper to fast trial starts offevolved with the arrest of the accused and consequent incarceration and maintains at all of the ranges of investigation, enquiry, trial, attraction and revision in order that prejudice resulting from the impermissible and avoidable postpone may be averted.
Conclusion
From the above facts, we will finish that initially, the fast trial become now no longer so essential however after the duration of emergency, the Courts began out taking hobby in presenting fast trials to save you needless harassments to the events to a crook proceeding. The Apex Courts via its judicial pronouncements held that fast trial is an inalienable proper beneathneath Article 21 of the charter and therefore no individual will be disadvantaged of his lifestyles and liberty with out the manner of regulation and the manner of regulation ought to be ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’, and ‘just’.
The proper to a fast trial is to be had in any respect ranges namely, investigation, inquiry, trial, attraction, revision and retrial. The Supreme Court in its numerous decisions emphasized that someone can method the Supreme Court beneathneath Article 32 and the High Court beneathneath Article 226 to implement the proper to a fast trial. However, the Court at numerous instances refused to restore a time restriction beneathneath which a tribulation must be concluded. At last, after making such a lot of provisions to make sure fast justice the humans of India are nevertheless now no longer getting fast justice withinside the real sense. There exist numerous motives for the postpone withinside the trial. Though the proper to a fast trial is a essential proper, it nevertheless calls for empirical look at and complete regulation for its significant application.
References
Kommula vikram
Aishwarya Says:
Law students often face problems, which they cannot share with their friends and families. We have started a column on our website Student’s Corner. In this column we are talking to several law students about the challenges that they face. Students who are interested in participating in the same, can fill this Google Form.
IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PARTICIPATING IN THE SAME, DO LET ME KNOW.
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 aishwarya@aishwaryasandeep.com
Join our Whatsapp Group for latest Job Opening