Hussain & Anr. vs. Union of India, 2017

Subject: Speedy trial  

In this landmark judgment, the Apex Court recapitulated the long delay which has stigmatized the Indian judiciary and issued directions to ensure speedy trial.

• The facts of the case are as follows: 
• Grievance in the instant appeals is against denial of bail pending trial/appeal where appellants have been in custody for a long period on the ground that in lieu of the fundamental right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, they were entitled to bail.
• In the first case, the appellants had been in custody since 4th August 2013 on the allegation of having committed an offense under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Their bail application, pending trial, had been dismissed.
• In the second case heard with this case (Aasu v. State of Rajasthan]), the appellant was in custody since 11th January 2009. He had been convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. His bail application had been dismissed by the High Court pending appeal.

1. With regards to custody for a long period of time, whether they are entitled to bail.
2. Whether they are entitled to a speedy trial is their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The court refused to decide over the merits of the appeal for bail as the case was already pending before the High Court but recognised the right of the appellant to speedy trial ordered for the completion of proceedings before the High Court within 6 months.

The court took notice of the issue and its frequency, the court took into consideration the need for authoritative instructions over the matter since the speedy trial is already a recognised part of the reasonable, fair and just procedure as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. A right guaranteed under Article 21 cannot be restrained on the ground of non-availability or restraints relating to the financial resources. The court referred to the judgment of the court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and ors v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98 reiterated the competence of the court to issue directions with regards to investigative machinery or setting-up of new courts, providing more staff and other measures as are required for a speedy trial. The court also pointed out the guidelines given by the court to the High courts in the Hussainara Khatoon and ors. etc. v. Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. (1995) 5 SCC 326 for the speedy trial and said that deprivation of personal liberty while undermining speedy trial is violative of Article 21.

The court also took notice of the Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700 where the reference was made to the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for implementation of Section 436A, Cr. PC. whereby instituting a review committee in every district headed by the respective District Judge.

The court also took reference of the Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors (2012) 2 SCC 688 where it was noted that around 21% cases of serious cases like murder, rape, kidnapping and dacoiting were pending for more than 10 years for the major reason of stay orders and therefore ordered for disposal of cases with stay orders to be finished within 6 months of that order. The court ordered for use of modern technological logistics like video conferencing etc to examine the evidence and reports, examine scientific experts, electronic service of summons etc and issue timelines for disposal of bail matters at every level as require 

The long delay has the effect of blatant violation of rule of law and adverse impact on access to justice which is a fundamental right. Therefore, the above judgment comes to the rescue of those who have suffered blatantly because of our lacuna-filled judicial system. The Chief Justices of all High Courts were asked to forthwith take appropriate steps consistent with the directions of the Supreme Court in earlier cases and Resolution of Chief Justices’ Conference and to have appropriate monitoring mechanism in place on the administrative side as well as on the judicial side for speeding up disposal of cases of undertrials pending in subordinate courts and appeals pending in the High Courts. It was inter alia directed as follows:-

(i) The High Courts may issue directions to subordinate courts that –

• (a) Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week;
• (b) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years;
• (c) Efforts be made to dispose of all cases which are five years old by the end of the year;
• (d) As a supplement to Section 436A, but consistent with the spirit thereof, if an undertrial has completed a period of custody in excess of the sentence likely to be awarded if conviction is recorded such undertrial must be released on personal bond. Such an assessment must be made by the concerned trial courts from time to time;
• (e) The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.

(ii) “The High Courts are requested to ensure that bail applications filed before them are decided as far as possible within one month and criminal appeals where accused are in custody for more than five years are concluded at the earliest”;

(iii) “The High Courts may prepare, issue and monitor appropriate action plans for the subordinate courts”; 

(iv) “The High Courts may monitor steps for speedy investigation and trials on administrative and judicial side from time to time”;

(v) “The High Courts may take such stringent measures” as may be found necessary in the light of judgment of this Court in Ex. Captain Harish Uppal case which called for the illegality of the strikes/abstaining of work by lawyers and other people of legal fraternity which result in obstruction of Court proceedings and reduction of events of condolences by holding such references once every two to three months. 

(vi) Lastly, the court highlighted the need and the responsibility of the everyone belonging to the judicial fraternity to understand the fact that justice delayed is justice denied and it is the constitutional responsibility of the State also to provide with all the necessary infrastructure for the monitoring of the smooth functioning of lower courts for timely disposal of cases and timely serving of justice.