Download PDF


The privilege to a reasonable and open criminal trial or a reasonable and formal proceeding in common procedures is one of the assurances in connection to legitimate procedures. Reasonable trial and reasonable hearing rights include: firstly, that all people are equal under the steady gaze of courts and councils and secondly, the privilege to a reasonable and formal review before a skillful, free and unbiased court or council set up by law. Each individual accused for a wrongdoing ought to have their blame or honesty controlled by a reasonable and successful legitimate procedure. In any case, it’s not just about securing suspects and adverse parties. It likewise makes social orders more secure and more grounded. Without reasonable preliminaries, unfortunate casualties can have no certainty that equity will be finished. Without fair trials, trust in government and the standard of law will result in breakdown. This privilege to a reasonable preliminary or trial isn’t new. It has for some time been perceived by the worldwide network as a fundamental human right as well as a constitutional right guaranteed by the constitution of India. In spite of this, it is correct that this is being mishandled in nations over the globe with destroying human and social results. There are several instances which shows the recognition of this privilege and overlooked at the same time. There are few proposals discussed in the paper which might help to resolve the issue to certain extent.


Justice delayed is justice denied, justice witheld is justice withdrawn.

Justice for the most part implies the nature of being just. For instance, granting what is expected. Justice comprises of fairness, rightness, integrity etc. Justice has small importance in the event if it isn’t conveyed in a sensibly brief time, entirely a postponed justice, baffling the reason thereof, is no justice by any means. Deferral is an extraordinary censure, and the weep for speedy justice is gotten notification from all quarters, slow justice would be worthless, over fast justice is unwanted, in the light of the fact that rushed justice suggests covered justice, expedient transfer of cases ought not to be developed to imply that cases ought to be discarded rapidly to the determent of justice. Also, the vitality and the significance of quick and brief trial of criminal offences in any democratic society gets from necessities of maintaining the public order and protecting individual opportunity which likewise incorporates speedy trial, which successfully encourages both powerful indictment of offenders and more noteworthy deterrence to potential culprits. The more time goes in the procedures in which people that have surrendered from enforcement of their rights and claim their pay for damages in legitimate way more than the time goes in the enforcement of rights the less people are satisfied. This circumstance will prompt diminish person’s satisfaction and reliance on law just as it will interrupt the very purpose behind the criminal law.


Global models perceive access to justice as both a basic human right and a way to secure other universally perceived human rights. A fair trial means a trial in which inclination or preference in support of the accused, the witness, the reason which is being tried, is eliminated. A fair trial would clearly mean a trial before an impartial judge, a reasonable prosecutor and an environment legal calm.[1]The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a momentous document proclaimed by the UN General Assembly in the year 1948. Article 10 of UDHR states that “Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”[2]Thenceforth, European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was outlined which came into effect in 1953 for guarding the human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Article 6 of ECHR states that a person has a right to get a fair trial in both civil and criminal cases and he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.[3]According to the European Court of Human Rights Article 6 is basically concerned about whether a candidate was afforded adequate chances to express his case and challenge the proof that he thought to be false, and not with whether the domestic courts reached a right or wrong decision.[4]Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states as “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shallbe entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law….”[5]

The 6th Amendment to the U.S Constitution provides that an accused in a criminal prosecution has a right to speedy and public trial.

Right to get a fair trial is substantially expressed in the Constitution of India. In a popularity based country like India, even an accused can’t be denied his entitlement to life and personal liberty. Indian Constitution through Article 21 renders the free trial as a piece of life and individual freedom. In Rattiaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh[6] the Court observed that fair trial is the core of criminal statutes. Forswearing of the fair trial is the disavowal of human rights. Every individual has a privilege to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of Article 21 of the constitution. Right to fair trial being a fundamental right cannot be denied to any individual by the virtue of the Indian Constitution.


Speedy trial implies a sensible speedily trial which consent to all basics of a trial. It is where the prosecution with sensible persistence starts immediately and conducts quickly. The Supreme Court of India recognized that speedy trial is a fundamental component of a fair trial.[7] Speedy trial is essential not exclusively to the victim yet additionally to the accused. Speedy trial guarantees that the accused is free from needless harassment. Furthermore, it’s the Constitutional obligation of the State to set up such procedure as would guarantee speedy trial to the accused. The idea of fair trial is a wide concept and incorporates the right of the accused to look for speedy trial. The concept of fair trial has four primary measurements as to speedy justice:

  1. The examination or investigating officer will achieve immediacy in examinations.
  2. The adjudicating authority ought to get every single applicable material which the individual wishes to create against the opponent.
  3. The judiciary or the judge should offer a chance to the accused to rebut those materials.
  4. The judiciary ought to conclude its assurance of guilt or innocence and passing of the applicable sentence with promptitude.

These aims of Speedy and fair trial have been additionally given due acknowledgement by the different organizations which are associated with the development of law for example the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Law Commission and so forth. The fundamental percepts of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are:[8]

  1. An accused should get a fair trial as per the acknowledged standards of natural justice.
  2. Each exertion should be made to avoid delay in investigation and trial which is destructive not exclusively to the person’s advantage yet additionally to the interest of whole society.
  3. The procedure should not be complex and to the outmost degree possible, guarantee reasonable arrangements to the poorer sections of the society.

Consequently, the fundamental objective of CrPC, 1973 is to rearrange and abbreviate the procedures as to guarantee fast and fair trial. Under Section 482 read with section 483, CrPC lays that each conceivable measure to be taken to dispose of the case within six months of initiation. No dismissals to be conceded until and except if conditions are outside the ability to control of the judiciary. It is the duty of the judiciary to keep a check on under trial prisoners and lead them to trial.


The philosophy of Right to Speedy trial has developed in ages yet its objectives are unforeseen. The right is an idea manages transfer of cases as quickly as time permits to make the judiciary efficient and reliable. The Constitution of India does not explicitly or independently cherish the privilege of speedy justice, yet it perceives as a target of the framework.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution specifies that nobody shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty, except according to the procedure established by law. The legitimacy of Preventive Detention Act, 1950 was challenged in the case of A.K Gopalan v. State of Madras[9]. This was the first case where the ‘the procedure established by law was addressed and interpreted by the apex court. The majority held that the word law in article 21 couldn’t be read as important tenets of natural justice. The rules of natural justice are vague and uncertain and the constitution couldn’t be read as laying down a vague standard. Along these lines procedure established by law would subsequently mean the procedure laid down in an enacted law. This perspective of the Court was highly criticized as this interpretation would prompt the postponement in natural justice denying an individual his freedom.Thereafter, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[10]the Court concluded that the due process of trial is a crucial part of personal liberty and subsequently a basic right under article 21. The expanding horizon of article 21 as to speedy trial is purely a judicial effort. There have been numerous situations where the judges have made prominence on the right to speedy trial which are:

  • Chajju Ram v. RadheyShyam[11]

The Supreme Court refused to immediate a re-trial following a time of ten years having respects in the certainties and conditions of the case and in concern of the Justice.

  • Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles[12]

Justice Krishna Iyer recommended that orderly moderate movement in dispensation of justice must claim the country’s prompt consideration towards essential reconstruction of the customary structure and procedure; there are some postpones which are avoidable in the current court system which must be avoided.

  • MantooMajumdar v. State of Bihar[13]

The court directed the release of two under trial detainees who had been in prison for a period of seven years remembering the right to speedy justice which both the detainees were denied off.

  • Raghubir Singh v. State of Bihar[14]

The court held that the encroachment of ideal to right to speedy trial couldn’t be derived only from deferral in police examination. The court brought up that the postponement was because of the idea of the case and general circumstances prevailing in the nation.

  • State of Maharashtra v. ChampaLal[15]

The court held that if the denounced himself is in charge of the postponement, he couldn’t exploit this right. The court said that a deferred trial isn’t necessarily an unfair trial.

  • Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration[16]

The court held that the act of keeping under trials with convicts in prisons irritated the test of reasonableness in article 19 and in article 21. Justice Krishna Iyer giving a noteworthy decision held that respectability of physical individual and his psychological identity is an essential right of the detainee and must be shielded from a wide range of atrocities.

  • Katar Singh v. State of Punjab[17]

It was announced that right to speedy trial is a basic piece of principal ideal to life and freedom.

  • Abdul Rahman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak[18]

The bench pronounced certain viewpoints and rules with respect to the speedy trial and quashing of cases ought to rely on nature of the case.

The repetitive irreconcilable situation between the delayed trial and speedy trial has perplexed the researchers, legislators, legal policies makers and the courts. The courts are mere observers.


In the reality, the privilege to speedy justice is most overlooked visible feature of the Criminal Justice System. The requirement of the speedy justice has been acknowledged in all the communities and during all the periods of their development and advancements. The delayed justice has been considered in every humanized framework as most biting evil of human culture. The issue of delays in law is certainly not another one but as old as the law itself.

In India, the true significance of ideal to quick trial has yet not been given. The purposes behind such a lethargic approach towards a standout amongst the most vital false notions in the criminal justice framework is obscure however a few Supreme Court decisions has demonstrated the route in featuring the predicament of thousands of accused standing trial or awaiting trial. Rehashed and consistent postponements and continuations in the criminal justice procedure keep exploiting people i.e. the victims from ever achieving enthusiastic, physical, and financial conclusion to the injury endured because of the wrongdoings executed against them.

Our justice system, even in grave bases experience slow movement syndrome which is deadly to fair trial whatever a definitive decision. Speedy justice is a segment of social justice since the society, all in all, is concerned in the criminal being condignly lastly rebuffed inside a sensible occasions and the blameless being exonerated from the inordinate trial of criminal procedures.[19] In any case, it is fundamental to comprehend that all trial’s to be important, enforceable and viable, there must be an external point of confinement past which duration of the procedures will be violation of Article 21. In the Indian context, Section 468 of CrPC, 1973 outfits a direction in the matter of illustration an external line past which criminal trials ought not to be permitted to go. In spite of the fact that Section 468 applies only to minor offenses its standard must be stretched out to other offenses also. There are heap reasons for deferral of trials in India. The judge to populace proportion in India presently considering the number of inhabitants in the nation and pendency of the cases is horrifying and alarming. The serious lack of judges in India has adequately incapacitated the legal procedure and equity conveyance instrument in India. In many cases delay happens when the accused begins looking for intermissions or adjournments if the individual finds the body of evidence weighed against him. Postponement brought upon by requests, regardless of whether incited by the accused or not, of the court, requiring bids or modifications or other fitting activities or procedures is a noteworthy barrier on account of speedy trials. Excursion or vacations of the court for long interims is in effect fervently discussed when in nation like India pendency of cases is enormous. In the vast majority of the nations like U.S. also, France there is no such arrangement which enables courts to go for a get-away. Rushed and not well drafted enactments and resolutions on different and complex themes instituted in India, have effectively added to some degree in the postponement in cases. The Bhopal Gas Tragedy is a consuming notice of what catastrophizes poorly drafted laws can bring.


  • The quantity of judges in the courts must be expanded in order to diminish and limit the weight of settling the cases on each specific judge.
  • The court procedure must be improved actually in order to make the court, a sound space to determine the debate with no difficulty.
  • The police must be urged to quicken the investigation procedure.
  • The criminal cases must be proceeded in the blink of an eye when in the middle of the cases, the hearing judge is made transferred.
  • Advancing the administration with pointless adjournments in the hands of the judiciary must be stopped.
  • The bail for less grave offenses must be increased.
  • The under trial detainees or the prisoners must be isolated from the ones who have as of now being indicted by the court and consequently should be dealt with delicately since they are still viewed as guiltless according to the law.

Also, the Malimath Committee Report recommended different methods for assisting the procedure of trials in India. The principle point of this board of trustees is to make suggestion for reformation on Criminal justice framework, disentangling legal procedures, practices and making the conveyance of justice to the regular man nearer. Judges ought to be furnished with legitimate preparing and livelihoods all the time to extemporize there drafting, hearing and composing abilities alongside the aptitude of taking right and quick judgment. Legal responsibility is one of the essential factor. Cases must be assigned as per the specialization of judges. Relegating cases without thinking about the specialization prompts delay. Also, special courts and tribunals ought to be set up for some specific fields of which cases please an ordinary expansive scale premise for example Tax collection, labour and so forth. Arbitration needs to be done wherever conceivable and specifically little and insignificant cases intervention ought to be made obligatory. It will spare valuable time of the courts. Nyaya Panchayats ought to be approved to arrange off little and negligible cases. Notwithstanding, LokAdalats were set up for the quick transfer of cases at lower level. Revision is required with the aim that procedural delays does not happen.


Justice in its strict as well as unique structure, remains the very purpose behind law, and the exceptionally thought process of the lawful framework. Justice being a fundamental principle is a major guideline of law. It is indistinguishable from law, as much as that law and justice appears to be synonymous. The guideline so fundamental is hindered by issues so complex that the quick arrangements are elusive. It is pitiful that the building of the legitimate framework still stands on delicate sand, as its establishment stays inadequate.

Individuals everywhere throughout the world have been raising their voices to accomplish speedier equity for themselves, their kin, and the majority. Numerous classes, gatherings and workshops are hung on this subject yet are a long way from accomplishment. Changes are being embraced by the legitimate frameworks around the world to accomplish speedier justice. What is apparent is that this objective must be accomplished on the whole, and requires imaginative and result situated reasoning on part of the governing body, legal executive, official, media, bar, society and the country in general. When we aim attention at India, we locate a grave circumstance of pending status of cases in Indian courts. The biggest vote based system has, of course, troubling record in fast conveyance of justice. The foundations for this are profound established and obscure. In spite of the fact that there have been numerous measures attempted, little achievement has been met thinking about the sheer volume of pending cases. This mission of giving speedier justice won’t be finished until the keep going individual or the last individual gets justice on time.

The causes which prevent fast conveying of equity in India, as referenced previously, are perplexing and profound established. Now and again, these reasons are more close to personal and specific than general. The deferring strategies of the lawyers, the flaws of the parties, and the appeals of boundless interests are largely in charge of it. The impediments of the measures taken to address the framework are additionally capable. Ordinarily the incapability of the executive is to blame, different occasions the power of well known governmental issues. There are flaws inside the legal framework i.e. judiciary, particularly at the lower level. These causes are a few and profound established, and require strength of self-analysis and resolve to distinguish them and annihilate them. This should be finished by everybody, the seat, the bar, the legislature, the legislators, the general society, and the general public as a whole.

[1]ZahiraHabibullah Sheikh and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors, (2006) 3 SCC 374.

[2] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948,

[3]European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, ECHR, art. 6, (1953).

[4]Karalevičius v. Lithuania, (2005).

[5]International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966,

[6] AIR 2012 SC 1485.

[7] Husainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1980 1 SCC 98.

[8]Statement of Objects and reasons Cr PC, 1973, para 3.

[9] AIR 1950 SC 27.

[10](1978) 2 SCR 621.

[11] AIR 1971 SC 1367.

[12] AIR 1974 SC 2122.

[13] AIR 1980 SC 847.

[14] 1987 AIR 149.

[15] 1982 SCR (1) 299.

[16] 1980 AIR 1579.

[17] 1994 SCC (3) 569.

[18] 1988 AIR 1531.

[19]Babu Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1978 SC 527.

Cite as: Harsha Agrawal, Speedy Trial: A Privilege Overlooked, 1 Int’l J. of Legal Sci. and Inno. 2 (2019)