right to speedy trial

 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL 

BY NUPUR GARG 

INTRODUCTION

The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial is an important safeguard to prevent undue and oppressive incarceration prior to trial; to minimize concern accompanying public accusation and to limit the possibilities that long delays will impair the ability of an accused to defend himself. The right to a speedy trial is first mentioned in that landmark document of English law, the Magna Carta. The constitutional philosophy propounded as right to speedy trial has though grown in age by almost two and a half decades, the goal sought to be achieved is yet a far-off peak. It a concept which deals with speedy disposal of cases to make the judiciary more effective and to impart justice as fast as possible. Article 21 declares that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.

 Justice Bhagwati in the Maneka Gandhi Case observed that:

“The expression ‘personal liberty’ in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19.”

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, in 1978, in the Maneka Gandhi case held that for the deprivation of life and liberty of a person, two conditions are necessary:

1. There should be a law, and 

2.  The law should be ‘reasonable’,’ fair’ and ‘just’. 

The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be “reasonable, fair or just” unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial.

DELAY IN CASES 

1. Court system delay which accounts for the period of entering the cause till its taken up for trial.

2. Delay due to professional courtesy of lawyers towards each other and lawyer's vis-à-vis the court.

SHEELA BARSA VS UNION OF INDIA, 1986

In this case, the Supreme Court held that if an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental Right to Speedy Trial would be violated unless there is some interim order passed by the superior Court or deliberate delay on the part of the accused. The consequence of such a delay would be that the prosecution would be liable to be quashed.

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 

Section 89 of CPC deals with settlement of dispute outside the court: It provides that where it appears to the court that there exist elements, which may be acceptable to the parties, the court may formulate the terms of a possible settlement and refer the same for arbitration, conciliation, mediation or judicial settlement. Nowadays the concept of online ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is gaining recognition but the problem with it is the lack of IT knowledge among the lower masses and need of knowledge of law and ADR, technical concerns, legal sanctity of proceedings, industry support etc. However, there are many loopholes in the measures taken by the government.

CONCLUSION 

From the above facts, we can conclude that initially, the speedy trial was not so important but after the period of emergency, the Courts started taking interest in providing speedy trials to prevent unnecessary harassments to the parties to a criminal proceeding. The Apex Courts through its judicial pronouncements held that speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the constitution and hence no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty without the procedure of law and the procedure of law must be ‘fair’, ‘reasonable’, and ‘just’.