IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
1979 AIR
1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
Petitioner
Hussainara
Khatoon &Ors.
Respondent
Home Secretary,
State of Bihar
Date of
Judgement
9 March 1979
Bench
N. Bhagwati, J.;
A. Desai, J.
Background
This case is a landmark decision on the
expeditious trial of cases, which became recognized as a fundamental right
of every accused person. It is a component of the proper administration of
justice. Article 21 of the Constitution imposes on the state the duty to
protect the rights of individuals, which includes the duty to ensure that cases
are tried as soon as possible. As part of Article 21 of the Constitution, also
guarantees the right of the poor to free legal services.
Facts of the Case
A writ petition of habeas corpus was filed before the
court under Article 32 for the release of under-trial prisoners in the state of
Bihar. There are a large number of under-trial prisoners, including women and
children, who have been detained for many years. This exemplifies the sad state
of justice administration in Bihar. The state of Bihar was then directed to
file a revised chart showing a year-by-year breakdown of the under-trial
prisoners into two distinct categories: those charged with minor offenses and
those charged with major offenses.
Issue Raised
Can the right to a speedy trial be considered a
fundamental right under Article 21?
Provisions Involved
·
Article
21 of the Indian Constitution of 1950
·
Article
39A of the Indian Constitution of 1950
Arguments
The counter-affidavit presented in court, a number of
under-trial prisoners at the Patna central jail, Muzaffarpur central jail, and
Ranchi central jail has been produced before the magistrate and given judicial
custody as needed. The Court, however, found this averment unsatisfactory
because it fails to comply with the directive to produce the dates on which
these under-trial prisoners were remanded. Furthermore, the respondents stated
that most cases are halted due to a delay in receiving expert opinions, in
order to justify the growing number of pending cases. The court could not
accept this submission because the state can always hire more experts as needed.
Judgment
A large number of men, women and even children were
imprisoned for years, awaiting their trials. The offenses for which some of the
prisoners were charged were minor, and even if proper charges had been imposed,
the punishment would have been limited to a few months in prison. According to
Bihar government reports, many prisoners who were held as undertrials in the
Central Jails of Patna, Ranchi, and Muzaffarpur before their release was
regularly brought before magistrates but were repeatedly remanded in judicial
custody. To justify the pending status of so many cases, it was claimed that
approximately 10% of cases were pending because they required expert opinions,
which were also delayed.
The Apex Court found all arguments unsatisfactory and
ordered the release of the 17 undertrial prisoners whose names Mrs. Hingorani
mentioned in her writ petition.
The Ruling of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court ruled that the detention of these
prisoners was illegal because it violated Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution's Fundamental Right to Life and Liberty. The Court ordered the
state government to appoint a lawyer at its own expense for making bail
applications and opposing remand in the case of prisoners who had committed
bailable offenses. Furthermore, the state government and the high court were
required to provide details on the location and status of cases in the courts
of magistrates and courts of sessions in the state of Bihar up until December
31, 1978, and to explain the delay in disposing of cases.
The Supreme Court determined the callousness of the
legal justice system, as well as the lack of money and resources that poor
people face, denying them access to justice. Justice Bhagwati ruled that the
State cannot deny a person's Fundamental Right to a Speedy Trial because it
lacks adequate resources to improve the legal justice system and increase the
impetus for a speedy trial.
When an accused is not given a speedy and just trial,
or is refused bail on unreasonable grounds, especially when one is indigent, or
when an undertrial prisoner is forced to undergo imprisonment for a term longer
than his/her punishment, or when the accused is poor and is not given with free
legal aid by the State, Article 21 of the Constitution is infringed.
Principle Discussed
Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to
free legal aid and a speedy trial, which is an essential component of the
"reasonable, fair, and just" procedure.
The Consequences of the Hussainara Khatoon Case
The Hussainara Khatoon case transformed the Indian
legal system. Hussainara was one of six female undertrial prisoners held in
Bihar's prisons, hence the name. The case not only resulted in the release of
the undertrial prisoners held in Bihar, but it also resulted in the release of
40,000 undertrial prisoners held illegally despite the fact that their prison
terms had expired. Mrs. Hingorani became known as the "mother of PILs"
because this was the first PIL in the Indian legal system. She later revealed
the Bhagalpur Blindings case, in which some police officers blinded 33
suspected offenders with needles and acid.
Conclusion
The case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar
reveals flaws in the country's legal system. Even though the right to a speedy
trial is a Fundamental Right enshrined in our Constitution, this case
highlights a flagrant violation of that right, in which undertrial prisoners were
forced to serve lengthy sentences simply because the courts lacked the time and
resources to acquit or sentence them properly.
Since the case, approximately 40,000 undertrial
prisoners have been released, demonstrating that if a person is dedicated to
the well-being of the country, he or she can accomplish great things. More
lawyers like Mrs. Kapila Hingorani are needed so that the underprivileged and
poor can have support when they raise their voices and are not silenced by
superior powers.
0 Comments