‘No speedy trial, no justice’: SC warns against eroding system’s credibility
The court called for urgent reforms in trial procedures to prevent undue delays that undermine faith in the criminal justice system
Prolonged pretrial incarceration due to delays in trials not only violates an accused person’s fundamental rights but also erodes public trust in the judicial system, the Supreme Court emphasised, urging courts across the country to ensure that the process of justice is not derailed by procedural inefficiencies.
Stressing that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution, a bench of justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan called for urgent reforms in trial procedures to prevent undue delays that undermine faith in the criminal justice system, even as it reinforced that gravity of an alleged crime alone cannot deprive a person of their liberty for an indefinite period.
Granting bail to a man accused of Naxalite activities after nearly five years of incarceration, the court made a compelling statement on the principle of bail and the necessity of expeditious trials.
“Many times, we have made ourselves very clear that howsoever serious a crime may be, the accused has a fundamental right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. We may sound as if laying some guidelines, but time has come to consider this issue of delay and bail in its true and proper perspective,” the bench held in its February 14 judgment.
The bench highlighted the devastating impact of lengthy pretrial incarceration. “If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed,” it said.
Maintaining that the stress of long trials on accused persons, who remain innocent until proven guilty, can be significant, the bench pointed out that accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pretrial incarceration.
“They may also have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships while incarcerated, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatized and perhaps even ostracised in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources,” it lamented.
The judgment underscored: “We would say that delays are bad for the accused and extremely bad for the victims, for Indian society and for the credibility of our justice system, which is valued. Judges are the masters of their courtrooms and the Criminal Procedure Code provides many tools for the judges to use in order to ensure that cases proceed efficiently.”
The case pertained to an accused arrested in March 2020 in Chhattisgarh for allegedly carrying items purportedly linked to Naxalite activities. The police intercepted his vehicle and recovered shoes, printed fabric, electric wires, LED lenses, and a walkie-talkie, which were cited as material intended for extremist use. Despite nearly five years in custody, the prosecution examined only 42 witnesses and intended to examine about 100.
Expressing concern over the prolonged proceedings, the bench questioned the necessity of such an extensive witness list and called for more pragmatic prosecution strategies. “Before we close this matter, we would like to observe as to why the public prosecutor wants to examine 100 witnesses. Who are these 100 witnesses? No useful purpose would be served if 10 witnesses are examined to establish one particular fact,” the court remarked.
The bench said that such a practice results in indefinite delay in the conclusion of trials. “It is expected of the public prosecutor to wisely exercise his discretion in so far as examination of the witnesses is concerned… The role of the special judge (NIA) would also assume importance. The special judge should inquire with the public prosecutor why he intends to examine a particular witness if such witness is going to depose the very same thing that any other witness might have deposed earlier,” said the court, reminding trial courts that they possess the tools under the CrPC (now replaced with the Bharatiya Nyay Suraksha Sanhita) to ensure efficient case management.
Taking these factors into account, the court ordered the release of the accused on bail, subject to conditions, including a restriction on entering the Kanker district of Chhattisgarh except for key stages of the trial. The bench also directed the special judge (NIA) to critically assess the prosecution’s decision to examine an excessive number of witnesses and ensure that trials do not suffer unnecessary delays.