Speedy Trial: A Constitutional Right in Need of Procedural Safeguards

(The author, Priyal Bansal is a second-year student at Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow.)

It has been over four decades since the Indian judiciary, in its landmark judgment of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, marked the Right to Speedy Trial as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The decision was based on the judgment in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, which observed that a speedy trial is essential to ensure a ‘reasonable, fair and just’ trial. The legal maxim, “justice delayed is justice denied”, encapsulates the belief that prolonged delay      in legal proceedings can shake the very concept of justice. However, we will analyse if justice still prevail.

The larger question remains: Did justice get done through constitutional assurance and fundamental rights? This is well emphasised by the recent Supreme Court judgments, which granted bail to long- standing undertrials as a remedy for delayed trials. The impact of these bail judgments will be explained in this paper and whether they are a cure or a consolation will be discussed. It also raises the question of the long-term feasibility of such measures. The right to a speedy trial as a constitutional guarantee requires practical measures through procedural safeguards and systematic reforms, which, at present, are lacking.

Judicial Perspective

The Supreme Court, in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, while exercising its      appellate jurisdiction, granted bail to the petitioner. The accused was denied bail      by the Lucknow High Court due to the grievousness of the offence. He was charged under Section 489B and 489C of the Indian Penal Code relating to using and possessing counterfeit currency, respectively. The court left it to the discretion of the Lucknow High Court to consider, on merit, the issue of framing of charges under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, if the state government approaches it.

The Supreme Court granted the appellant bail despite serious allegations, citing several reasons. Firstly, the petitioners had been in jail for nine long years, and only two witness statements had been taken during that period. Secondly, upon being questioned on the number of testimonies the prosecution wanted to examine, they failed to apprise the court of this knowledge. This implied an enormous delay, with no certainty on the duration of the trial. 

The judgment aligned with Javed Gulab Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, where the accused was involved in a fake currency case under similar sections. He was granted bail after four years of custody. The judges remarked that merely the intensity of the crime would not be a valuable reason for rejecting the bail application. This encouraged the judicial view that extended custody without a trial may incline the court to think about the remedy of bail.

There are broader ramifications regarding the right to a speedy trial as they fail to ascertain timely      hearings and provide bail as a remedy for delays in the trial after years of suffering in prison, awaiting judgment. The next sub-head of the article discusses the problems and solutions regarding these recent trends.

What is being overlooked?

Prison Statistics India (2022), a report released by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), recorded that 75.08% inhabitants of prisoners in India are undertrial. The occupancy rate is 131%. Since then, the courts have continued stressing while writing their judgments, highlighting the grim situation and the urgent need to take action. However, in recent cases, the only way it is being e
nsured is at a snail’s pace by providing bail to the long-serving undertrials. The solution is neither to grant bail, like free samples at the grocery store, nor to ignore the problem, believing it will be resolved independently. But the need is to examine the issues under these circumstance-

1. First, the problem related to pending applications for bail in India must be scrutinized. According to the Supreme Court Annual Reports 2021-22, 4.3 lakh bail applications were filed before High Courts in India alone in 2021 22. More than 1 lakh bails were pending in the same bracket year.
2. Secondly, is bail enough as a remedy? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef referenced  ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, a novel by Charles Dickens, which depicted the effect of spending years in custody. The inmate in this book had spent eighteen years in imprisonment, which made him forget details about his life that existed outside bars. Life is not just inside prison, but outside too. The pending trial is like a sword hanging with a fine thread, which may fall at any moment. Further, the Supreme Court held that lengthy incarceration pending trial is harsh on not just the accused but also their family.  

Suggestions

The Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders established pre-trial detention as an exception and to only be considered if justice will be seriously interfered upon releasing the prisoner. In the Indian context, while it is true that ‘Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment,’ sufficient caution has to be exercised to ensure that delay is not used as a defense tactic merely to obtain bail. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb explained how the bail has to be decided based on multiple factors. It is a vicious cycle as the criminal process becomes the punishment itself. However, the current pace of pending bail applications at different levels of courts represents the dire need to change how bail is granted. The following solutions should be explored-

1. Periodical Review of trial inmates- There should be a periodic review of the undertrials in incarceration. The reviews should be periodic, maybe after a year, and ensure that detention is still necessary, even if they were denied bail once. Here, the court should take the updates, and an equivalent opportunity should be provided to both parties to submit their arguments on why or why not the accused should be considered for undertrial imprisonment. This is a similar approach to what is followed in the Netherlands. A Custody Review Board could be set up by the government. Unlike the one in Canada, which exclusively hears applications of children under eighteen in custody or detention, in India it may consider all such matters where bail is denied. Even if the bail is denied by the district court, this board can periodically review the need for their continued incarceration. The members of the board may include, a Retired Supreme Court as Chairperson, Public Prosecutors and members from National Human Rights Commission and law clerks for case law research. Further, on the working and the workload, the board can be decentralized and be formed on state level, regional etc. 
2. Reviewing Long-pending cases- Long-pending cases at the undertrial stage that have been pending for five years or more should be reviewed. It would lead to identifying the causes of delays, and if the causes are arbitrary or unreasonable, the court can impose consequences on the parties responsible.
3. Compensation for Long-term Imprisonment and Trials- If a person is acquitted after imprisonment for several years (for example, ten years), there should be compensation for their suffering. The Law Commission of India suggested that, under the chairmanship of Justice BS Chauhan, special courts in each district should be established to compensate victims of miscarriage of justice. Even if the recommendation is implemented, people may not come forward and report against the wrongful prosecution. Here, this review panel should not always wait for the sufferer to file a suit under malicious prosecution in cases of lengthy trials. The court may direct these special courts to assess cases where, after delivering a judgment, it becomes evident that the trial involved unjustifiably long term imprisonment or malicious prosecution. They would then evaluate the circumstances and determine the appropriate compensation. It will ensure justice for those wrongfully subjected to prolonged incarceration or unfair legal proceedings without placing the burden on the victim to initiate further legal action.If not special tribunals, Review Panels could be established within the existing judicial framework, which will automatically review cases where individuals have been acquitted after either a prolonged detention or a long undertrial case. These panels could be part of Fast Track Courts.
4. Separate Benches in the Lower Courts- It is recommended that these measures be facilitated. If not special courts, the lower courts should have benches assigned and kept explicitly for dealing with non-bailable offenses. This ‘Fast Track Bail Cell Bench’ would effectively dispense lower court cases and ease the pressure on higher courts. This can work in accordance with District Legal Service Authorities of their respective jurisdictions, where quarterly data of prisoners including their undertrial time, offenses etc. could be looked upon. Accordingly, roosters could be prepared for these benches.
5. Protection to lower court judges- It has been highlighted by different legal luminaries like Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Dipankar Dutta that district judges are afraid of granting bail. It was emphasised in Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal’s speech at the inaugural ceremony of the National Conference of the District Judiciary. Despite the active acknowledgement, the country still awaits an implementation. Judicial officers could be appointed to ensure the integrity behind the complaint against a judge. If the complaint is found malicious, fines should be imposed to create deterrence in the minds of perpetrators and safeguard law enforcers.

Conclusion

The article explores that the responsibility does not cease with declarations of rights as constitutional or fundamental, but it begins from there. The article calls for procedural adjustments to incorporate a more just and balanced system. The article suggests reducing the burden on the higher judiciary for bails by incorporating special courts or benches in lower courts. They should also review the pendency of cases that linger for years. These measures should be accompanied by protecting the judges from frivolous complaints. This would be feasible considering our constitutional principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. They are still accused and not convict.