Rudiments Of Fair And Speedy Trial Under The Constitution - An Overview Of Criminal Procedure In India
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Constitutional & Human Rights
Published:
Updated:
RUDIMENTS OF FAIR AND SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION: AN OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN INDIA Mr. Shivraj Ananta Dubele, B.B.A. LL.B. (Hon’s), University of Mumbai Law Academy
ABSTRACT
The right to a time-bound and fair trial stands as a crucial constitutional guarantee under the provision of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, ensuring that no person should suffer through prolonged and unjust legal proceedings. Indian judicial pronouncements have expanded this provision to include reasonable time bound for investigation process, prosecution, and trial procedure, along with safeguards such as free legal aid, adjudication of cases without prejudice, and compliances with established process of law. This research article conceptualised the Indian Constitutional grounds, legal framework, and anticipating judiciary which governing this right, specifically in accordance of criminal procedure in India.
With the introduction of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Indian criminal justice delivery procedure has provided with substantial reforms and rectifications that aims and emphasizes at improving effectiveness of this vital procedure through technology, well settled process, and streamlined procedures. However, the inbuild challenges which need to be reform as lack in infrastructure facilities and weak coordination in between prosecution side and investigating authorities constantly prolonged the enforcement of such reforms. This study conceptualised that recent transformations adequately support the constitutional vision and identifies areas requiring further improvement.
The motive behind emphasizing that the Justice must be just and fair with abiding provisions, reinforcing that in criminal justice system without effectiveness, fairness and efficiency shouldn’t uphold democratic principles and public trust. Hence, to uphold constitutional principles and public trust in criminal justice system the fair and speedy disposal of the trial becomes key aspect.
Introduction
The concept of fair, free and time bound trial increases the public trust in the criminal justice system whereas delay in the same causes in violation of the concept of speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Sahil, 2021). The right enshrined and provided to every individual who’s undergoing the Criminal Trial that, fair, transparent, time bound and speedy in nature establishes as a foundational safeguard/right within criminal justice system that inclined to constitutionalism, individuals’ dignity and the rule of law. In The Constitution of India, such provision or fundamentals are guaranteed in Article 14, 21, and 22, assuring that no person should face inefficient, arbitrary in nature, or unjust deprivation of their fundamental freedoms and liberties provided so. With enforcement of new criminal laws which governing criminal procedure in India [viz.
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) (Ramaswamy, 2024)] the legal frame work and provisions has come up with significant reforms that emphasized on the way or trial to be in manner of transparency, time bound, efficient and upholding the constitutional fundamentals. The quote, “Justice delayed is justice denied” mirrors the importance of time bound court proceedings. Delay in conclusion of trial can lead to accused undergoing unwanted incarceration without conviction, victims being deprived of timely and fair justice, and the public have losing trust in the judiciary and criminal justice delivery system (Mayank, 2025). The narrative behind the phrase that reflects the significance of time bound justice delivering system in criminal procedural law.
Prolonged or delay in delivering of justice or while long pendency of trial, the person who allegedly been an accused in the case may face unwanted long incarceration without proven guilty, victim may be deprived of delay in delivery of justice, and the public may have decrease in confidence in judiciary or in justice delivery system. The concept of free, fair and time bound trial requires an effective procedure where no persons should be acquitted or convicted wrongly in rush to conclude the trial timely as the timely disposal of trial has only meaning when the justice delivered timely and fairly too. While deciding the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors. vs. State of Gujrat and Ors. the Supreme Court Observed that, “Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial.
Denial of fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as it is to the victim and to society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of Judicial Calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witness or the cause which is being tried, is eliminated” (Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors. v. State of Gujrat and ors, 2006). hence the trial must be free, fair and time bound in nature where the justice reaches or delivered in the manner where no rights, liberties and constitutional guarantees of an individual should be deprived. The research focuses on the right to free, fair and speedy disposal of trial by reviewing statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, significance and potential reforms.
It traces the evolution of this right from its foundation and roots in the Indian Constitution to how it has been shaped by judicial interpretation and the current challenges faced in enforcement of the same. Statutory framework The concept and right of speedy and fair, free and transparent trial in Indian Criminal jurisprudence is a key feature to ensure that, both the accused and victim not to trapped in long and delayed proceedings and unsolved case and trial must resolved before an impartial court. Several constitutional provisions and statutory frameworks guarantee the same. A) Constitutional framework and provisions: Article 14 – Guarantees the principles ‘equality before law’ with ‘equal protection of law’ ensures and prescribed that, no trials must be biased or discriminatory.
Article 21 – the Indian Constitution not specifically provides Speedy and fair trial as right but Supreme Court of India adopted the same under the ambit of Article 21 which enshrines ‘right to life’ with individuals ‘personal liberty’. Article 39A (DPSP) – Direction to state to provide legal aid for all. (Rai, 2023). In the case of Common Cause (Regd. Society) vs. Union of India, the Apex Court of India held that, “Article 21 also prohibits arbitrary or unlawful detention. It ensures that no person can be detained without proper legal justification or without following the due process of law. It safeguards against arbitrary arrests and protects individuals from being unlawfully deprived of their freedom. It also encompasses the right to a fair trial.
It guarantees that every person accused of an offense shall have the right to a fair and impartial trial, including the right to legal representation, the right to be heard, and the right to present evidence in their defense. ” (Common Cause (Regd. Society) vs. Union of India, 2018).
In Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, the case decided by apex court ‘observed that unreasonable delay in trials amounts to a violation of Article 21’ (Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, 1979). B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Section 187 – It Provides the timelines for investigation, filing of charge sheets, and completion of trial to prevent unnecessary delay. Section 193 – Provides that, accused has right to default bail within 60 or 90 days, depending on the nature and seriousness of offence, if the investigation is not completed. (Ramaswamy, 2024) C) Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), 2023: Apart from procedural reforms, BSA plays vital role to ensure that, court accept only lawfully collected, relevant and reliable evidence. It prevents forced confessions or improperly obtained materials to strengthen principle of fair trial.
(Ramaswamy, 2024) Judicial Interpretation on Right to free, fair and speedy trial The Indian judiciary plays a vital role in safeguard the rights of the people and it has tried to uphold the constitutional right to speedy trial, right to fair trial etc. in view to uphold the provision enshrined under Article 21 (Kumar, 2019). In recent case of Shaheen Malik Vs. Union of India and anr. , the Supreme Court made serious observations and CJI Surya Kant Stated that, “Please file an application, tell us why the trial has not been completed since 2009. We will take sue motu cognizance. If the national capital cannot handle such situations, then who? This is such a shame! ” (Shaheen Malik Vs. Union of India and anr. , 2025) While interpreting the Article 21 of the Constitution, pronounced in the case of Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali V. The State (Govt.
of NCT) Supreme Court stated that, “every person, therefore, has a right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty. ” (Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali V. The State (Govt. of NCT), 2012) In case of Moti Lal Saraf V. Union of India, the court observed that, “the concept of a fair trial is an integral part of article 21 of the Constitution. Section 309(1) of Cr. P. C provides that ‘In every inquiry or trial the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded. ’ The speedy trial is a right guaranteed by the Constitution and its denial is the violation of the right to fair trial”. (Moti Lal Saraf V. Union of India, 2006) In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V.
State of Maharashtra and Another (2024) the Supreme Court derived that “If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime. ” (Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra and Another , 2024) In Case of Rajdeo Sharma Vs.
State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India made observation on in case of delay in trial, how accused should be treated, “In case of inordinate delay in completion of trial, if delay is not occasioned to the fault of the accused, the case against the accused is liable to be closed and the accused, if he is in the jail, is entitled to be released unconditionally. If prosecution is unable to produce witness inspites of repeated opportunity, the magistrate has power to close the criminal proceeding against the accused”. (Raj Deo Sharma vs The State Of Bihar , 1999) On too many occasions the Higher Court need to direct the trial Court to Conclude the trial in meantime as it had happen several times where prosecution fails to produce evidence on time before the trial court, in such cases, in case of Akhtar Bi Vs. State of M.
P the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, “The court should dispose of the criminal prosecution as early as possible, in any case within 5 years, under the mandate of speedy trial failing which held Apex Court, the benefit of bail should be given to the accused by the High Court”. (Akhtar Bi –V- State of M. P, 2001) The Indian Supreme Court repeatedly emphasize on the importance of fair and speedy trial and considered it as an integral part of constitutional fundamental right under the Article 21 through its various judgement. To conclude trial timely and fairly, the Hon’ble court pronounced various landmark judgement in benefit of the accused and victim too.
Although, without proper implementation of Supreme Court Guidelines, active role of administration, time bound and effective performance of investigating authorities and fair support from legal representative this motive of free, fair, time bound and speedy disposal of trial cannot be achieved. To uphold the Constitutional principles provided under Article 21, Supreme Court guidelines and majorly the public trust in criminal justice delivery system, all these machineries need to be efficient with their roles and duties to sustain and preserve the idea of fair and speedy trial. Principles of Fair trial Sr. No. Principles 1. Adversary trial system. 2. Presumption of innocence. 3. Independent, Impartial and Competent judge. 4. Knowledge of accusation. 5. Right to open trial. 6. Right to free legal aid (Article 39 A). 7. The trial shouldn’t carry out in absence of accused. 8.
Evidence to be admitted or refused in presence of accused. 9. Protection against illegal arrest (Article 22). and victim and unavailability of witness involved. Ensuring timely disposal of trial reinforce public trust in judicial institution and justice delivering system and prevent the criminal trial to become a punishment in itself. Due to unnecessary delay in concluding of trial and delay in producing material on record too many allegedly accused person have serving the process of trial as punishment behind the bars in reason of custodial interrogation simultaneously such delays made victims to lose the trust and confidence in justice delivery system and hence it required to have time bound and fair disposal of trial to ensure and uphold the constitutional morals and public trust in justice delivering system too. While pronouncing judgement of Rattiaram Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that “the fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence. A fair trial is a fundamental right which flows from article 21 of the Constitution. Denial of the fair trial is the denial of human right. (Rattiaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012)” There are numerous reasons for delay in conclusion of trial and cases pending before Magistrate and Session Judges. The delay in disposal of criminal trial is a major administrative problem in criminal justice system. The new criminal laws viz. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the provisions to resolve or reduce the delay and increase fairness in trial by introducing new and reformed concepts like digital court services, fast-tract courts, Alternative dispute redressal mechanism (ADR) to dispose of trial timely and fairly (Tanaya Singh, 2015).
However, enforcing new law and emphasizing on rapid and fair disposal through the statutory provision is not sufficient as effective implementation and regulation still presents critical challenge which need to be inculcated in the system. Lack of implementation and weak coordination in between the system who carried out the trial (viz. Judiciary, prosecution side, witnesses, victim and accused) and the technological barriers like poor forensic infrastructures, limited technological access to assist the trial are major role players to delay the trial. The challenge of carrying out trial timely and fairly is administrative necessity to keep criminal justice system accessible with democratic values.
Obstacles in free, fair and speedy disposal of trial The right of free, fair and time bound disposal of trial isn’t explicitly recognized, but it has been introduced by Supreme Court of India several times as Part of Article 21. Moreover, the new criminal laws viz. BNSS, 2023 also focuses to secure time bund investigation and trial, but various barriers still remain.
One utmost obstacle is excessive in hand and undecided cases in courts. Even with Constitutional obligations and procedural guards under BNSS, the limited no. of Judges, prosecutors, and infrastructural facilities in court becomes reason in delay and disposal of case. Delay in investigation process and continues adjournments are major barriers to timely disposal of trial. Despite BNSS provided with prescribed time bound procedures, investigation process is often slow, and adjournments sought due to non-production of witness, absence of legal representative, or administrative inability. Moreover, abuse of provision and safeguards provided under BNSS, 2023 through unnecessary appeals and applications moved which led to deliberate delay and affecting the concept of free, fair and speedy disposal of trial.
Such delays beat the objectives of Article 21 and decrease public trust in criminal justice system. (Mayank, 2025) Hence, its today’s necessity to work all the machinery comprising in criminal justice delivery system effectively to reduce such obstacles to meet and reach at justice timely to keep alive trust and confidence in public on criminal justice system and to uphold the constitutional morals and principles. Conclusion: The enshrined principle of time bound, speedy, free and fair trial not only a legal necessity but a constitutional guarantee that uphold the fundamentals of the constitution like dignity, liberty and confidence of individuals in criminal justice procedure.
By way of judicial interpretation and pronouncement and necessary reforms, the right of the timely and fair trial becomes an integral part of Article 21 warranting that no individual tolerates wrongful prosecution or unnecessary hinder in look for justice. As a part of trial, criminal procedure to deliver the justice loses it sense if such trials become delayed and prejudice as its frail evidence, over burden victims and accused persons and erodes public belief in the procedure established by law. The study of criminal procedure in India shows that both fairness and time boundness must work together to create a justice system that protects the innocent, punishes the guilty, and respects due process of law.
The aim of these principles is not only to set precedence and not to pronounced judgements but to assure that every essence from investigation to trial is lawful, equitable, non-discriminatory, just and unprejudiced. Current reforms, counting the BNSS,
2023 and relevant statutory framework mirrors an endeavour to strengthen competence and
responsibility, yet the impactful development ultimately lies with consistent execution, cooperation and modernization in delivering of criminal justice system where all the machineries viz. Trial Courts, Prosecution side, Investigating authorities, administrative authorities and legal representatives of both side should work efficiently to uphold the constitutional principles, morals, judicial intent and public confidence in criminal Justice delivery system inclusively to preserve the motive behind the right of fair and speedy trial. In essence, the idea derived from this research article is that justice should be prompt and principled. A procedural way that is quick but biased is as detrimental as one that is unbiased but delayed endlessly as its right of victim as well as accused to reach at justice promptly.
Hence, the trial must be concluded in meantime and in fair manner whereas convincing principle of criminal procedure is to balance the constitutional values and procedural trust so that justice remains accessible, credible and aligned with democratic and human rights ideals. Moreover, the system that lacks with basic institutional facilities to carry out fair and speedy trial must try to reform at utmost effect to balance the constitutional and statutory principles to build public confidence.
Bibliography • Academy, N. J. (2019). Right to Fair Trial. Delhi : National Judicial Academy . Retrieved from nja web site. • Akhtar Bi –V- State of M.P, Apl. (Crl.) 320/2001 (The Supreme Court of India March 22, 2001). • Arya, M. K. (2016). Right to speedy trial and mercy petition in India . Manupatra (Article section), 168 (1 of Documet). • Common Cause (Regd. Society) vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No. 215 of 2005 (Supreme Court of India March 09, 2018). • Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar, 1979 AIR 1369 (Supreme Court of India March 09, 1979). • Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh V. State of Maharashtra and Another , Crl. APL. No. 2787 of
2024 (Supreme Court of India July 03, 2024).
Kumar, D. D. (2019). Judicial Pronoucement on Speedy trial in india: an anlyasis. 72 (1 of Document). • Mayank. (2025, April). Right to Speedy and fair trial: A Fundamnetal Pillar of Jutice . International Journal of Creative research thoughts (IJCRT), 1-2. • Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali V. The State (Govt. of NCT), Crl. APL. No. 1091 of 2006 (Supreme Court of India January 11, 2012). • Moti Lal Saraf V. Union of India, APL (Crl.) 774 of 2002 (Supreme Court of India September 29, 2006). • Rai, S. (2023). The Constitution of India . Delhi, : Young Global Publications. • Raj Deo Sharma vs The State Of Bihar , AIR 1999 SC 3524 (The Supreme Court of India September 22, 1999).
Ramaswamy, D. B. (2024). New Criminal Laws (Criminal Manual). Delhi: Professional. • Rattiaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Apl. No. 223 of 2008 (Supreme Court of India February 17, 2012). • Sahil, M. (2021, September 08). ssrn.com. Retrieved from papers.ssrn.com: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3903240 • Shaheen Malik Vs. Union of India and anr., WP (Civil) No. 1112 of 2025 (Supreme Court of India December 04, 2025). • Tanaya Singh, R. K. (2015). Right of ‘Speedy’ and ‘Fair’ Trial of accused: An overview. International Journal of Applied Research, 618 - 620 (2 of Document). • Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors. v. State of Gujrat and ors, APL (Crl.) 446-449 of
2024 (Supreme Court of India March 08, 2006).