CITATION: 1979 AIR 1360
CASE TYPE: Writ petition
QUORUM: Justice P.N. Bhagwati, Justice R.S. Pathak and Justice A.D. Koshal
JURISDICTION: Supreme Court Of India (Original Jurisdiction)
JUDGMENT DATE: 12th February 1979
INTRODUCTION
Imagine being confined in jail without being given a chance to prove your innocence for years. That sounds so unfair, right? That was the fate of many until the judgment of this case was given. This case became a landmark precedent for such under trial prisoners cases. It looked into the reasons for such delays. While drafting this judgment, judges took into consideration the monetary and living conditions, gravity of the crime committed and punishment for it, availability of legal representation to the under privileged etc. This judgment laid the foundation and development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India. It laid down some exceptional remedies for the problem.
Let’s explore the consequences and the impact that it created in society.
FACTS
A newspaper article by R.F. Rustum was published in Indian Express about under trial prisoners who were detained in jail for a time period exceeding their detention period by large margins. After reading the article Advocate Pushpa Kapila Hingorani filed a writ petition in nature of Habeas Corpus for such undertrial prisoners considering that even if their offences were proved, they would not constitute punishments for more than a few months including Hussainara Khatoon who was in detention in jail for past 4-5 years even after government’s order to release prisoners held under the Foreigners Act,1946[1].
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- Whether the right to speedy trial is protected under the ambit of Article 21[2] of The constitution of India?
- Whether free legal aid is enforceable under Article 39A[3] of The Constitution of India?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
The petitioner argued that the under-trial prisoners were being held beyond their maximum imprisonment term provided for their alleged offences. Such prolonged detentions were direct violation of Article 21[4] of the Constitution of India as it affected their quality of life and liberty. The parity in financial conditions of the prisoners also is the cause of the problem. A number of under-trial prisoners were unable to get bail due to absence of money for monetary sureties. There is also lack of knowledge due to which many of them are unable to seek bail or obtain a legal representation.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The Respondents, State of Bihar, did not appear even when the notices were issued. The Hon’ble Court proceeded on the basis of assumption that the allegations made in the article of the Indian Express dated 8th and 9th January, 1979 were true.
JUDGMENT
The Hon’ble Court held that the people mentioned in the writ should get bail on the basis of personal sureties. People who had already served the maximum term of imprisonment of the crimes they were accused of should be released as well. The provision for bail on the basis of personal sureties rather than monetary sureties came into existence. The factors to be taken into consideration for personal sureties were- “(1) The length of his residence in the community, (2) his employment status. History and his financial condition, (3) his family ties and relationships, (4) his reputation, character and monetary condition, (5) his prior criminal record including any record of prior release on recognizance or on bail, (6) the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability, (7) the nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these are relevant to the risk of non appearance, and (8) any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or bearing on the risk of wilful failure to appear.”[5] It also directed the Magistrates to inform the under trial prisoners about provision of free legal aid, especially to those who were accused of bailable offences. Further, the state government and the High Courts were directed to submit lists of all pending under trial cases by 31st December, 1978.
RATIO DECIDENDI
It was held that although not explicitly mentioned speedy trial is under the scope of Article 21[6] of The Constitution of India because if a person is deprived of his life and liberty due to unfair and unjust procedure then that’s violation of his fundamental right. Individuals who are unable to furnish monetary bail bonds should be released on personal bonds as it is unjust if a person’s liberty is at stake due to financial conditions. Moreover it is discriminatory in attaining justice between rich and underprivileged. No one should be denied justice due to weak financial conditions.
ANALYSIS
The legal maxim, ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ holds the essence that a delayed remedy is no remedy at all. It defeats all the purpose of justice. If Justice served is not reasonable, fair and just in all contexts then what’s even the purpose of it? This judgment took into consideration these aspects and concluded that speedy trial is part of Article 21[7]. Being in detention for longer durations before even conviction, under trial prisoners lose essential time and moments of their life. They lose their means of livelihood, relationship with their kiths and kins and have a grave effect on mental health. This step was essential and required.
It’s true that there is a financial difference between different classes of people but that shouldn’t be a barrier in getting justice. People who are not monetarily sound were finding difficulty in getting bail. This judgment came as a ray of hope to such people who now could furnish bail bonds on personal sureties. The Hon’ble Court took into consideration that monetary bond is not the only efficient parameter to prevent absconding. They are personal factors also that could prevent someone from absconding. It’s better to take those conditions as leverage than completely denying someone his right to life and liberty. With advancement in technology, we can use GPS tracker bands for people who have higher chances of absconding or want bail in non-bailable offences.
This Judgment laid the foundation for Legal Service Authority Act, 1987[8], providing legal representation to those who could not afford it. It’s not fair to someone to not get a chance to prove their innocence due to lack of monetary funds thus giving a fair stage to Article 39A[9] of the constitution of India.
CONCLUSION
I would like to conclude by stating that the judiciary needs to strike a balance between speedy trial and fair trial so that it doesn’t damage the justice to the victim as well. The system needs to work on judicial backlog as even after so many years of this judgment we still face the issue of delayed trials. There needs to be a better management for reducing the chances of absconding. The state needs to work on quality of representation provided through legal service aids.
There are definitely short-comings in implementation of measures stated in this judgment nevertheless it’s a breakthrough judgment which upheld basic human rights and is still paving path for significant development in the procedure of attaining justice.
Author: Bhavna
2nd Year Undergraduate Law Student
Faculty of Law, University of Allahabad
References
[1] Foreigners Act 1946 (India).
[2] The Constitution of India, art 21.
[3] Ibid art 39A.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar (1979) 1 SCC 98.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Legal Services Authorities Act 1987.
[9] Ibid.
