CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF SPEEDY TRIAL

The right to a speedy trial is a human right under which it is propounded that a government may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily. Otherwise, the power to delay would allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for arbitrary length of time without any delay. As Speedy trial is an essence of criminal justice and in United States speedy trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed right under the sixth Amendment.

There are many cases deal with right to speedy trial in the Part III of the constitution of India i.e. Hussainara Khatoon (No. 1) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar AIR 1979 SC, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was filed by number of undertrial prisoners who were in jails in the State of Bihar for years awaiting their trial. The Supreme Court held that “right to a spedy trial” a fundamental right is given in the guarantee of life and personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and Court also held that the right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 is available to accused at the stages i.e. Investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.  The court underlying the right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are:-

(a)    The period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be short. In other words, the accused shall not be confined or remained to unnecessary in  long detention  on point of his conviction;

(b)   The worry , anxiety, expense , stress and disturbance to his  peace resulting from an unduly prolonged investigation, inquiry or trial shall be minimal; and

(c)    Undue delay may result in shattering of the ability of the accused to defend himself whether on account of death or availability of witnesses or otherwise.

Regarding Time Limit - The court said that the accused cannot be denied the right of speedy trial merely on the ground that he had failed to demand a speedy trial. So in regards to the time limit court decided that by balancing the attendant circumstances and relevant factors, including nature of offence, number of accused and witnesses, the workload of the court etc  so therefore no time limit can be fixed for speedy trial. The charges for the conviction shall be quashed if the courts come to the conclusion that right to speedy trial of an accused has been infringed.  

In Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar (1986) 4SCC 481, the accused persons who were being tried for waging war against the state filed writ petitions under Article 136 before the supreme court for quashing the proceedings before the special judge on the ground of violation of right to speedy trial which is mentioned under Article 21 part III of the constitution. So the court held that there was no delay in investigation and trial of their cases and right to speedy trial is one of the fundamental rights to life and personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21. So two questions rose whether right to speedy trial was infringed depending on various factors? Was the delay owing to the nature of the case?  Was it due to the tactics?

In this present case, it was found that delay was caused due to tactics of the accused as they did assert their rights which were evident from number of the petitions filed before the Magistrate and the delay in investigation was outcome of the nature of the case.  

Speedy Justice

Delay in disposal of cases also violates Article 21 it is duly mentioned in one of the famous case i.e. Moses Wilson v. Karturba AIR 2008 SC 379 the supreme court expressed concern in delay in disposal of cases and directed the concerned authorities to do needful in the matter urgently before the situation goes totally out of control. In present case, a suit was filed in 1947 for a sum of Rs. 7000/- and continued for 60 years and had not been disposed of. The Supreme Court expressed deep concern at the delay in disposing of cases in the court because of delay in disposal of cases; people in this country were fast losing faith in the judiciary. This situation should be set right as soon as possible and the court directed concerned authorities to do needful in the matter.

No Outer Limit for Speedy Trial

The delay tolerated varies case to case, the manner of proof as well as gravity of the alleged crime which depends on case to case basis. There cannot be a universal rile binding on it. It is a balancing process while determining as to whether the accused’s right to speedy trial has been violated or not. So there is a judgment in Rajan Dwivedi v. C.B.I. through the Director General AIR 2012 SC 3217 by which Supreme Court held mere delay in approaching a court of law is not by itself a ground for dismissing of a case though it may be a relevant circumstance in reaching a final verdict.

Conclusion:

The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 was enacted in order to insure both the defendant's and society's interests in having speedy trials. By providing that the time period does not attach until the accused is arrested or served with a summons, however, the Act permits the Government to take such action at any convenient time within the applicable statute of limitations. Although the defendant can prove a denial of due process by showing that the state's delay was intentional and greatly prejudiced him in the presentation of his defense, the fact is that the above allegations are extremely difficult to substantiate. In practical effect, the Act gives the Government its option to arrest the accused at the correct time or to delay in order that it may build its case.