Speedy / Fair Trail

 

Important Points

1. A21 - Right to life and liberty
1. Right to speedy trail MAY NOT be expressly guaranteed constitutional right in India, BUT it is IMPLICIT in RIGHT TO FAIR TRAIL which has been held to be part of Right to live and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution
2. A21 confers a FR - NOT to deprived of life and liberty EXCEPT in accordance with procedure prescribed by law AND procedure should be REASONABLE, FAIR & JUST.
3. Right to life; personal liberty is one of the basic human rights and even State has NO Authority to violate that right
4. Right to life in A21 means something more than mere survival or animal existence.
5. Unwanted domiciliary visit by police can be held violation of A21 
6. Right to life is MOST SACRED right preserved and protected under constitution
1. Violation is always actionable
2. NO necessity of statutory provision as such for preserving that right.
2. State Role and Duty
1. State is DUTY Bound to ensure speedy trail and avoid any excessive delay in trial of criminal cases 
2. State is vicariously liable for tortuous act of its servant.
3. Theory of Sovereign power NO longer available in a Welfare State 
3. Role of Criminal Courts
1. Criminal Courts are not obligated to Terminate the trail on account of lapse of time
1. Time limit themselves cannot be treated by any court as bar to further continuation of trail and mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.
2. A watchful & diligent trail judge can prove to be better protector of Rights
4. Speedy trail includes
1. Trail in court
2. Preceding police investigation
5. Consideration for Speedy trail
1. It is a balancing Act to be done by judge by considering all attendant circumstances
6. Violation of Fundamental Right of Speedy Trail  - Reliefs
1. Appropriate compensation jointly and severally from respondents
2. Only effective REMDY open to the Judiciary to prevent violation of Rt guaranteed under A21 of the Constitution of India is payment of compensation u/s A32 - Rudal Shal
3. Right to Compensation is thus some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities of the State. State must repair the damage done by its officers to the petitioner right. It may have recourse against these officers
4. Award of compensation in A32 and A226 is Remedy available in public law for contravention of FR  - Soverign Immunity does not apply
5. Quantum of Compensation
1. Govt notification the monthly wages of semi-silled labour in year 2015-16 - Rs10,400/- 
2. Rs10400 x ( number of months of illegal detention ) + 6% interest 

Grounds for Compensation

1. Several application seeking relief - without any positive response

Guidelines for Speedy Trail

1. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs R.S Nayak
2. Reaffirmed in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka

Leading Case Law

1. T.V Vatheeswarn Vs State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1979 SC 1360
1. Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking on behalf of Supreme Court. 
2. Speedy Trail is of the essence of criminal Justice and there can be no doubt that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of Justice
2. Hussainara Khatoon Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar ( 1980) 1 SCC 31
1. 436A of CrPC - Entitled to release on bail for non-conclusion of trail within stipulated time
2. A21 confers a fundamental right on every person not to be deprived of his life or liberty EXCEPT in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and procedure should be reasonable, fair and just.
3. Under trail prisoners who are accused of multiple offense and who have been detained for maximum term for which they could be sentenced on conviction, even if the sentence awarded to them are consecutive and not concurrent, should not be allowed to continue to remain in jail for a moment longer, since such continuance of detention would be clearly violation, not only to human dignity, but also of their fundamental right under A21
3. Rudul Sah Vs State of Bihar AIR 1983 SC 1086
1. Write Petition filed before SC for Seeking compensation for illegal detention for over 14y
2. Only effective remedy open to the Judiciary to prevent violation of Rt guaranteed u/s A21 is PAYMENT of Compensation u/s A32
3. Although A32 CANNOT be used as substitute for enforcement of Right and obligations which can be enforced efficaciously through the ordinary processes of court, SC in exercise of it jurisdiction under A32 can pass an order for payment of such money if such order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right.
4. State of Rajasthan Vs V. Vidhyawati & other AIR 1962 SC 933
1. State of Rajasthan was held liable for compensation on account of rash and negligent driving of jeep owned and maintained by State of Rajasthan
2. State Vicariously liable
1. Now that we have by our constitution, established a republican form of Government and one of objective is to establish a socialistic state with it varied industrial and other activities, employing a large army of servants, there is no justification, in principle of in public interest that the state should not be held liable vicariously for tortuous acts of its servants.
5. Abdul rehman Antulay & Other Vs R. S Nayak & another ( 1992) 1 SCC 225
1. Exposition of Hussainara Khatoon
2. Guidelines for Speedy Trail  
3. What are consequence flow from infringement of right to speedy trail
4. Champalal Punjaji Shah - Quashing of charges/conviction may not be in the interest of Justice, it shall be open to the court to pass such appropriate orders as may be deemed just in the circumstances of the case.
6. P. Ramchandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SC 578
1. The dictum of A.R. Antulay case is correct and still hold the field
2. The proposition emerging from A21 of the constitution and expounding the right to speedy trail laid down as guidelines in A.R Antulay case, adequately take care of Right to speedy trail. We uphold and Re-affirm the said propositions.
3. The guidelines laid down in A.R Antulaya case are not exhaustive but ONLY illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a strait jacked formula. Their applicability would depend on facts-situation of each case. It is difficult to foresee all situation and no generalization can be made.
4. Criminal courts are not obliged to Terminate trail or criminal proceeding merely on account of lapse of time. 
5. Criminal courts should exercise their available power, such as those under Section 309, 311, 258 of CrPC to effecutate the right of speedy trail
6. A watchful & diligent trail judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines. Jurisdiction of HC u/s 482 CrPC, A226/227 of Constitution seeking appropriate relief or suitable direction.
7. this is appropriate occasion to remind Union of India and State governments to strengthen the judiciary - by providing requisite funds, manpower and infrastructure. 
7. Maneka gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597
1. State is the Guardian of fundamental rights of people and DUTY bound to ensure speedy trail and avoid any excessive delay in trail of criminal cases that could result in grave miscarriage of Justice
8. Pankaj Kumar Vs State of Maharashtra (2008) 16 SCC 117
1. Rt to speedy trail in all criminal prosecution is an inalienable right under A21 
2. this right is applicable NOT only to the actual proceeding in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation as well. 
3. Rt to speedy trail extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases
9. Common Cause, a Registered Society 
1. Para 78
1. Theory of Sovereign power which was propounded in Kasturi Lal Vs State of UP AIR 1965 SC 1039 is NO longer available in a welfare state.
10. Nilabati Behera Vs State of Orissa 
1. SC considered the question whether the constitutional remedy of compensation for infringement of FR is DISTINCT from and IN ADDITION to remedy in private law for damages observed
2. Award of compensation in a proceeding under A32 by SC or by HC u/s 226 is a REMEDY available in PUBLIC LAW,  based on STRICT LIABILITY for the contravention of FR to which the principle of sovereign immunity does not apply, even though it may be available as defense of the State in private law in action based on tort.
3. Claim in public law for compensation for contravention of human rights and Fundamental freedoms, the protection of which is guaranteed in the constitution, is an acknowledge remedy for enformcemt and protection of such rights
11. Chairman, Railway Board Vs Chandrima das (2000) 2 SCC 465
1. where public functionaries are involved and matter relates to violation of FR or the enforcement of public duties, the remedy would still be available under public law notwithstanding that a suit could be filed for damages under private law.
2. the public law and the court can award compensation to petitioner who suffered personal injuries amounting to tortuous acts at the hands of officers of the Government.
12. Siddharam stalingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharastrat 
1. Right to life; personal liberty is one of the basic human rights and even State has NO Authority to violate that right
13. State of Maharashtra Vs Chandrabhan tale
1. Right to life in A21 means something more than mere survival or animal existence.
2. Right also includes live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head and facilities for reading writing and expressing oneself in different forms.  freely moving and mixing and commingling with fellow humand
14. Kharak Singh Vs State of UP
1. SC has held that UNWARRANTED domiciliary visit by the police can be held to be violative of A21.
15. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association
1. Right to life guaranteed u/s A21 is MOST SACRED right preserved and protected under constitution, 
1. violation of which is always actionable and 
2. there is no necessity  of statutory provision as such for preserving that right

Case Law

1. Nitin Aryan Vs State of Chhttisgarh  Writ Petition ( Cr) No 629 of 2020 - link
1. Nitin Aryan - convicted u/s 420/34 , 120 IPC - sentenced for 3y of imprisonment
2. Trail completed after 4y, 6m, 7days - he continued as undertrail
3. Seeks compensation of 30L for illegal detention for about 1y,6m, 8days

Arguments against compensation

1. Writ petition suffers from Delay and laches - petition deserves to be dismissed
2. No right of the petitioner is violated as it not been demonstrated by the petitioner that the trail could not be concluded at the earliest due to fault of the respondent.
3. Judicial custody is accordance with law and procedure established by law - and not Illegal detention
4. Petitioner seeking compensation by resorting to public law remedy will have to 
1. Prove and establish that constitutional mandate has been flouted high handedly and contrary to the provision of the constitution of India