One of the most fundamental rights of an individual and a fundamental tenet of the criminal justice system in the modern, progressive society of the 21st century is the right to a fast trial, as a system that delays justice is equivalent to one that denies it.
All Indian people are guaranteed and enshrined in the concept of JUSTICE in social, economic, and political aspects by the country’s constitution. However, it is devastating and depressing to realize that, despite over 75 years of independence, we still cannot effectively and efficiently administer justice.
According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[i], no one may be deprived of their life or liberty unless it is done so in line with the legal process. Following the Apex Court’s ruling in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[ii], it is now widely accepted that a person cannot be deprived of their life or liberty merely because the process by which it is done must be “reasonable,” “fair,” and “just.” It is not sufficient for there to be some semblance of the legal process.
Thus, the very aim of this article is to examine the right of an individual to have a fair and speedy trial in the court of law, and also to study the loopholes and reasons for the delay in delivering justice.
Right to Speedy Trial
The goal of the right to a speedy trial is to increase the efficiency and dependability of the legal system by resolving matters as soon as feasible. The main objective of the right to a speedy trial is to establish justice in society.
The primary motivation for the establishment of legal systems by all governmental agencies is to provide justice to victims of crimes. According to the Indian Constitution, the judiciary is tasked with establishing a legislative framework to address issues pertaining to the administration of justice.
Jurisprudence of Speedy Trial
The foundational principle of swift trial law is that victims should get justice as soon as the legal system is able to offer it, and that no innocent person—or suspect—should be subjected to unjustified harassment by the judicial system or by the reason or the judicial proceedings for an extended length of time.
Constitutional Right to Speedy Trial
The fundamental right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states that no one shall be deprived of their life or personal freedom unless it is in compliance with the legal procedure.
Fair, reasonable, and equitable procedures—including timely justice without undue delay—are the goal of this right. The idea of a speedy trial, which is acknowledged as a fundamental component of the right to life and personal freedom, was solidified in Indian jurisprudence by the Supreme Court in the seminal case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), wherein the court ruled that the state is required by the constitution to give each accused person a speedy trial.
Right to Speedy Trial as Human Right
Human life is the rationale for the necessity of human rights. All persons are born with specific rights that are untamed by their socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, place of residence, and other personal traits.
It is often known that a speedy trial is a fundamental human right that is required for the fair administration of justice. Every individual accused of a crime has the right “to be tried without undue delay,” according to Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[iii], which enshrines this principle.
This rule reflects the universal understanding that justice delayed is justice denied. The right shields people against long-term pretrial confinement, psychological distress, social disgrace, and other injustices brought on by deteriorating memory or evidence loss over time.
Delayed Justice in Cases
One important issue is why an expedited hearing was required. A fast trial in the criminal justice system protects the accused from unnecessary incarceration before his conviction and provides justice for the victim. Thus, the desire for a speedy trial resulted from the unwarranted delay in case settlement.
Factors Responsible for Pendency of Cases
The following are the primary causes of cases remaining pending:
Insufficient Number of Judges: The lack of judges in both lower and higher courts is one of the main causes of the backlog. India’s judge-to-population ratio is low by worldwide standards, placing a great deal of strain on the country’s current judicial system.
Frequent Adjournments: Unnecessary delays are caused by the liberal granting of adjournments, which frequently occur at the request of attorneys or parties. The Supreme Court has denounced this conduct and underlined the necessity of stringent control over adjournments.
Complex and Lengthy Procedures: Procedural laws, particularly the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), are complicated and time-consuming. These include several steps such as filing, serving summonses, gathering evidence, arguing, and appealing, which frequently cause delays.
Lack of Infrastructure: Many courts function without basic necessities such as enough courtrooms, computers, power, libraries, and staff, impacting the effectiveness and quickness of case disposal.
Insufficient Utilization of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Processes: ADR techniques like mediation, arbitration, and Lok Adalats are available but underutilized. Encouraging ADR can lessen the workload on conventional courts.
Effect of Pendency
The pending cases in the Indian judicial system have profound and extensive impacts on individuals, governance, and society. The main consequences are:
Breach of the Right to a Speedy Trial: Delays in pending matters violate the right to a timely trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, eroding public trust and threatening the rule of law.
The Ignorance of Justice: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Victims must wait years for closure, and undertrial inmates suffer even before conviction. Delays in civil cases can affect relationships, business, or property rights.
Increasing Litigation Costs: Prolonged disputes lead to higher legal expenses, making justice inaccessible, especially for the underprivileged.
Prison Overcrowding: Many undertrial inmates remain incarcerated for years, resulting in poor living conditions and human rights violations.
A Decline in Public Trust: Prolonged cases reduce faith in the judiciary, leading to a preference for illegal or alternative dispute resolution methods.
Burden on Judiciary: Judges are overworked due to pendency, affecting the quality of judgments and increasing the risk of errors and appeals.
Case Study: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
Background
This landmark ruling recognized that a speedy trial is a basic right under Article 21. The case emphasized the need for timely trials and free legal aid to ensure justice and equality.
Facts of the Case
The writ petition for habeas corpus was filed under Article 32 to release 17 undertrial prisoners. The case highlighted the poor state of justice in Bihar where a large number of individuals, particularly from disadvantaged groups, were awaiting trial.
The court asked the State of Bihar to submit a detailed chart splitting the undertrials based on minor and serious offenses. The state failed to comply. Many undertrials had already served almost a decade in jail without trial and were denied bail due to poverty.
Issues Raised
Can the supply of free legal aid be enforced by law?
Does the right to a speedy trial fall within the ambit of Article 21?
What is the essence of a speedy trial under criminal justice?
Provisions Discussed
Article 21: Protection of life and personal liberty — No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Article 39A: The State shall ensure that citizens have the right to adequate means of livelihood and promote free legal aid.
Judgment
The court ordered the release of the undertrial prisoners listed by Mrs. Hingorani, noting that continued detention without trial violated Article 21. It directed that in bailable cases, the government must appoint a lawyer at its own expense to represent the accused during bail hearings. The court also demanded updated data on pending cases from the Bihar judiciary.
It was emphasized that free legal aid is a constitutional obligation, and long-term detention without trial is unconstitutional. The court mandated that legal aid must be provided on remand dates and long-term custody without trial would be illegal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court declared the case a blot on the judicial system, emphasizing that denying a trial equates to denying justice. It highlighted the systemic injustice faced by the poor and the necessity of upholding every citizen’s fundamental right to justice.
Analysis of the Case
A speedy trial is acknowledged as a fundamental and basic right under Article 21. Even though Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone who is arrested and imprisoned has the right to a trial within a reasonable amount of time, the right to a speedy trial in matters involving the United States is also guaranteed under the Constitution.
It would not be sufficient to simply lock them behind a bar. Given the current circumstances, human rights must be given top priority. Nonetheless, prisoners are denied some rights, including the timely assurance of such rights. Amendment procedures and the reference to an effective judge are common ways that justice is delivered to the highest standards.
Effect of the Judgment
Many convicted people who were awaiting trial were granted justice and subsequently released as a result of this ruling. Additionally, the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was emphasized. Attorneys, academics, and other legal professionals broadened the scope of PIL. They were critical of the socially marginalized groups.
These inmates stand a good possibility of being exonerated or given lighter sentences only if they get free legal aid. Since these inmates are also human, the government and legal system must now acknowledge and protect their rights. As a result, the petitions were dismissed after serving their initial purpose, and the highest court handled any further implementations.
Suggestions to Reduce Pendency of Cases and for Speedy Trial
Adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods
One strategy for reducing the backlog of civil cases is to promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Section 89 CPC mandates that suitable cases that are amenable to settlement by arbitration, judicial settlement, mediation, or other means be referred for the same. The number of pending cases will decrease as a result. In actuality, pendency will be greatly alleviated by abiding by the law.
Quick Judicial Appointments and Position Filling
Accelerating the hiring and appointment of judges at all levels is an essential first step. There are hundreds of cases outstanding for each judge in India, and the judge-to-population ratio is startlingly low. The speed at which justice is delivered can be significantly increased by promptly filling vacancies and boosting authorized strength.
Enhancing Subordinate Courts’ Infrastructure
An effective judiciary is built on a foundation of adequate infrastructure. Modern courtrooms, computerized file systems, case tracking software, video conferencing facilities, and skilled support personnel are all investments that the government and judiciary must make together. Courts in rural and semi-urban areas especially require immediate attention.
Priority Cases: Fast-Track and Special Courts
Time-bound disposal can be ensured by dedicated fast-track courts for addressing particular categories, such as corruption trials, business conflicts, and sexual offenses. It is necessary to regularly assess and expand fast-track court programs.
Conclusion
The legal adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” asserts that a party seeking legal remedy would have no recourse at all if it were not given swiftly. This indicates that the offered cure is not being employed. Since it is unfair for an injured person to have to endure their suffering with little possibility of recovery, this concept forms the basis for other rights, such as the right to a quick trial, which are intended to expedite the legal process.
The right to a prompt trial is more than just a legal formality; it is the cornerstone of an equitable and caring legal system. The Indian Constitution’s strong commitment to preserving individual liberty and dignity is demonstrated by this right, which is safeguarded by Article 21 and supported by court decisions like Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar.
However, despite its recognition, systemic delays and increasing case backlogs still undermine its practical effectiveness. Judicial reforms, infrastructure development, reasonable litigation, and technology innovation must all work together to preserve the genuine spirit of this right. In addition to defending the accused’s rights, ensuring prompt justice is crucial for boosting public confidence in the legal system.
We must work for a justice system where justice is not only served but also served promptly as future attorneys and concerned citizens, since justice postponed is, in fact, justice denied.
Books:
Introduction to the Constitution Of India, 20th Edition, Reprint 2009, Dr. Durga Das Basu, Lexis Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa Publishers, Nagpur
The Constitutional Law of India, 47th Edition, Dr. J.N. Pandey, Central Law Agency
I am Riddhi Gupta, a law student with a keen interest in legal research and writing. Through this article, I aim to present a thoughtful perspective on the topic, grounded in legal principles and supported by relevant case studies and analysis.
