Introduction:
Justice delayed is justice denied. No matter if the justice has been served, if it exceeds the time limit, the justice has been delayed. And anything that has been delayed has less seriousness as the time consumed is improper for the said delay. The same goes with a speedy trial.
The recent developments that took place in the concept of “right to a speedy trial” are plausible. The only aim of right to a speedy trial is to dispose of cases as soon as possible to reduce the burden on the judiciary and make it more efficient than it was, i.e., to inculcate speedy justice in the society.
Considering the present justice system, one can agree on how much the right to a speedy trial is a necessary component for the judiciary be it in the way of handling cases or finishing up the cases in a more effective and efficient manner.
Though there are no specific provisions for the right to a speedy trial, by judicial interpretation, the Supreme Court has held article 21 of the constitution of India confers the right of the accused. [1]
Article 21 of the constitution says “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law”[2]. From this we can interpret speedy trial to be a part of the right to life as a person confined in the prison against the procedure might get some relief. Because right now our country has a number of prisoners, waiting in the jail system against their personal liberty and right to life with no means or proper trial happening to them. Right to speedy trial gives a way to such cases that are yet to be disposed of, to be done in a faster and fair manner.
Why Does the Delay Take Place?
We can expect delay from many instances and places from a case point of view. It could be either from the judge’s side or from the advocate’s side. It all depends on the way a case is being handled.
- Advocate’s side:
Sometimes the advocates plead for more time for a case or it could be that the advocate isn’t available at the said time and that becomes a case for the next date, and that next date could be anywhere between 2 to 12 days.
- Judge’s side:
A judge adjourns the court for various reasons. The minor inconveniences can cause a case to extend to such extent that while the time justice has been served, it’s too late to acknowledge the fact that it could be of any use now. This, however, is not the same with every case.
- Imbalance in the Judge to population ratio:
One thing to keep in mind is the judge to case/population ratio. The population of judges in our country is nowhere proportional to the cases/population of our country. That creates a lot of burden on the judge’s side to tackle a case with brief understanding, which sometimes may not be possible. Another factor being the pending cases itself. Pending cases create a huge time gap that isn’t useful for either party. By the time the pending cases are cleared, the present case becomes a pending case! There could also be a delay in summoning the witnesses, in the submission of reports which therefore give way for a bigger delay.
Interpreting Speedy Trial With the right to Life
Though the right to a speedy trial is not a fundamental right in itself, it could be read together with article 21 of the constitution or can come under the umbrella provision of article 21.
In 1979 justice P.N.Bhagawati in the case of” Hussainara Khatoon” said that although the right to a speedy trial is not “ specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of article 21” as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi’s case.[3]
There is no doubt that the right to speedy justice holds equal importance. In fact, justice Krishna Iyer while dealing with the bail petition in Babu Singh v. the State of UP, remarked, “Our justice system even in grave cases, suffers from slow motion syndrome which is lethal to fair trial whatever the ultimate decision. Speedy justice is a component of social justice since the whole community, as a whole, is concerned in the criminal being condignly and finally punished within a reasonable time and the innocent being absolved from the inordinate ordeal of criminal proceedings”[4]
Ways to reduce the delay:
- Arbitration:
- One can always opt for arbitration, to settle a dispute instead of going through the court procedures. But if the case isn’t something to be settled in that way, courts are always a resort. Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties, to one or more arbitrators who make the binding decision on the dispute.[5]
- By the way of choosing arbitration, often it’s easy to settle a dispute in a faster way and also gives courts the time to look into and finish off the pending cases one by one. This process saves time and money and also gives the parties a fair chance to voice their opinions.
- Proper distribution of cases
- A systematic way of distributing the cases must take place in the courts. A certain set of cases must be given to judges with that subject understanding or those who have deep knowledge in that particular subject of the case. This ensures timely disposing of cases with fairness.
- Use of technology:
- The growth of technology has paved the way to a greater development of our country. Use of proper technology to segregate cases, files and court dates along with the summons, witness presentation etc, may in a way help the cases to be disposed off in a better manner.
India’s Stand on Speedy Trial
The answer is “Hussainara Khatoon’s” case.[6] Headed by Justice P.N. Bhagawati, this case has shed light on the need and necessity on the speedy trial system in India. the petition read that a large number of men and women, including children, were in jails for years awaiting trials in courts of law and that the offences, even if proved, would not warrant punishment for more than a few months. Although sufficient opportunity was given, the state did not appear before the court.
Justice P.N. Bhagawati said that “a procedure which keeps a large number of people behind bars without trial for long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair.”
He also said that “speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice and, therefore, delay in the trial by itself continues denial of justice. A need for explicit provision for the speedy trial, however, is a necessity for the country as this is the present scenario too.
There are NGOs finding their way to make sure they help such prisoners but it all halts at a particular procedure.
Conclusion
Delaying justice indirectly denies justice for a longer period of time. Though India made a stand-in “Hussainara Khatoon’s” case, an explicit provision on speedy trial will pave a greater way for the Indian judiciary system.
With the growing number of cases per day in our country, a proper speedy trial system will be of great help in disposing of the cases faster and in a fairer manner. While the time consumed for the long court procedure decreases, pending cases which were put on hold will get a chance to be disposed off. Citizens of our country live up to a great hope on the Indian judiciary system, as a means of “only” last resort for justice, and a speedy trial must be a way for that to continue or the coming times might prove people not to trust the court or the judiciary system as a means for faster justice delivery system. Speedy trial must be made into a right in itself, be it basic or fundamental, it must be adhered to. Our Indian judiciary has given many landmark cases for various issues, and one such for speedy trial would change the course of the justice delivery system.
[1] Prateek Handa “constitutional right to speedy trial” legal service India.com.
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/571/constitutional-Right-to-speedy-trial.html
[2] Constitution of India, article 21.
[3] Astha Sharma “speedy trial: Facilitation of legal system” (22nd April 2020) latest laws.com
https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/speedy-trial-facilitation-of-legal-system-by-astha-sharma/
[4] chhavi agarwal “right to speedy trial-problems and solutions” legal service india.com
http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l297-right-to-speedy-trial.html
[5] Wipo “what is arbitration”?
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/arbitration/what-is-arb.html
[6] Hussainara Khatoon & ORS v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979 AIR 1360.
0 Comments