Speedy Justice And The Bhima Koregaon Incident - A Caste-Based Case Study
Author: LawSphereX
Category: General Law
Published:
Updated:
SPEEDY JUSTICE AND THE BHIMA KOREGAON
INCIDENT: A CASTE-BASED CASE STUDY
Priyanka & Chiraayu Singh Trehan, LLM, RGNUL, Punjab
ABSTRACT
“The goal of achieving ‘justice’ is central to the Constitution, as outlined in the Preamble. The notion of justice—encompassing social, economic, and political aspects—is explicitly included in Article 38. According to the renowned constitutional scholar, Mr. H. M. Seervai, Article 39 further elaborates on this idea of justice. The Supreme Court has clarified that social justice also incorporates 'legal justice,' meaning that the justice system should offer affordable, prompt, and effective means for all citizens to obtain justice, regardless of their social, economic, or financial status. The need for timely justice extends to civil matters as well, where delays in resolving disputes can hinder the rights of the parties involved.
The importance of swift justice has been recognized not only by national bodies but also by international organizations and various government systems globally. Documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) all contain provisions guaranteeing the right to a speedy trial, positioning swift justice as a fundamental element of human rights law. The underlying principle behind the idea of speedy justice is captured in the well-known phrase, "justice delayed is justice denied. " Prolonged and unjust delays undermine the very essence of justice. Access to justice, including the right to swift justice, is enshrined as a fundamental human right in the Constitution.
Given the unique challenges faced by India, there is an increasing need for practical and systematic reforms to make this right a reality in the country. Keywords: Speedy Justice, Human Rights Law, International Human Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, Global Justice Standards
INTRODUCTION
The Preamble of the Constitution of India clearly outlines the intent to secure justice—social, economic, and political—for all citizens. The principle that "Justice delayed is justice denied" emphasizes that unreasonable delays in the judicial process equate to a denial of justice. The growing backlog of cases in trial and appellate courts, combined with an increasing number of cases being filed due to greater public awareness of rights, new legislation creating additional rights and duties, industrial growth, expanded trade and commerce, and various governmental measures affecting citizens at all levels, has become a significant issue. The right to life and personal liberty, guaranteed under Article 21, encompasses not only life and liberty, but also the right to live with dignity.
Currently, one of the major challenges facing the Indian legal system is the ever-increasing number of pending cases, from lower courts to the Supreme Court, across both civil and criminal cases. In criminal matters, provisions such as Article 21 of the Constitution ensure the” fundamental right to a speedy trial, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in several judgments. However, despite the importance placed on this fundamental right, the reality is starkly different—thousands of undertrial prisoners remain in jails across the country, with many cases not even beginning their trial process for years. With the growing backlog of cases and the declining pace of justice delivery, society increasingly views delayed justice as a denial of justice.
This project seeks to explore the concept and significance of speedy justice, examine the current legal framework regarding it in India, and analyze the causes of the massive case backlog, its consequences, and possible remedies.
CONCEPT OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Considering the importance of delivering speedy justice, the legal provisions and structures designed for the administration of justice aim to achieve two main objectives: the delivery of justice and its swift execution. A good legal system should provide fair, just, and timely resolutions. The criminal justice system itself is as old as society; no community has been free of crime, and therefore, all societies must continuously deal with crime. The approach to handling criminal offenses is referred to as the Criminal Justice System, which can be defined as "a coordinated set of procedures or a comprehensive framework of penal systems."
This system integrates various state agencies, such as the police, courts, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and prison personnel, all working towards the common goal of ensuring speedy justice and effective crime control. Speedy justice is considered essential for an efficient and effective criminal justice system. A fundamental principle of this system is that punishment should follow the conviction, not precede it. Another core concept is that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The right to swift justice is central not only to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system but also to ensuring a fair and impartial trial.
CONCEPTUAL ASPECT OF SPEEDY JUSTICE
Human rights are interconnected, indivisible, and mutually dependent, sharing a common objective of promoting human development. Both human rights and development are driven by a shared vision of advancing dignity and well-being. This emphasis on human dignity is highlighted in international frameworks such as the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and various international covenants. Similarly, the Constitution of “India underscores individual dignity as a fundamental value, a sentiment enshrined in its Preamble. The Constitution of India was drafted around the same time as the UDHR and contains analogous provisions. Part III of the Indian Constitution, which outlines the fundamental rights, aligns with Articles 2-21 of the UDHR, while the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV correspond to Articles 22-28 of the UDHR.
Additionally, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) of 1966 further elaborate on these rights. 1” From a legal and rights-based perspective, equality has emerged as a critical entitlement worldwide. The principle of equality is rooted in justice, with a strong relationship between the two concepts. As a result, the concept of equality forbids all forms of unjust, unwarranted, and illegitimate disparities. In its judgment in the Albanian Minority Case, the Permanent Court of International Justice stated that "equality before the law excludes any form of discrimination. " The rule of law and the protection of fundamental human rights are key principles for effective governance in today's world.
1 Abhishek M. Singhvi, “Beating the Backlog: Less Talk, More Action”, 2 SCC(J) 13 (2007).
As a welfare state, every nation is tasked with safeguarding and promoting the rights of its citizens. Today, legal provisions that are centered on rights are often evaluated against international human rights standards. According to these global standards, the right to equality is recognized as a fundamental human right. The concept of speedy justice also emerges from these principles of equality and the rule of law. It is well established that access to justice is often more difficult for marginalized sections of society than for the privileged. This inequality in access to justice is why religious doctrines have historically emphasized the importance of speedy justice as a core duty of rulers, reflecting justice as dharma. The two World Wars and various revolutions worldwide serve as reminders of gross violations of fundamental human rights, including the denial of timely justice.
Delays in justice not only undermine its effectiveness but also breed resentment among the people. Although the concept of equality before the law originated in the English legal system and the principle of equal protection of the law was introduced by the American legal system, both share a common concern: the notion of equal justice. For both ideas to be meaningful, equality must prevail under similar circumstances. Speedy and effective access to justice is an essential human right for every individual, regardless of their circumstances. This right is universally acknowledged, as seen in religious doctrines and numerous international legal documents. 2
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS SECURING THE RIGHT TO
SPEEDY JUSTICE
Constitutional Provisions “The Indian Constitution places great emphasis on the importance of speedy justice, as reflected in its Preamble, which outlines the goals of achieving economic, social, and political justice for all. Speedy trial has been recognized as part of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is enforceable through legal avenues, including the writ jurisdiction of the courts. A key provision related to speedy justice is found in the Directive Principles of State Policy, which serve as guidelines for the government to work towards these ideals.3
2 Abhishek M. Singhvi, “Beating the Backlog: Less Talk, More Action”, 2 SCC(J) 13 (2007).
3 Jagmohan Singh, “Human Rights and Right to Speedy Trial”, 26 Civil and Military Law Journal 179-192 (1990).
Preamble The Preamble of the Constitution of India articulates the vision and aspirations of the people of India, which are reflected in the various provisions of the Constitution. The objectives set before the Constituent Assembly were to establish India as a sovereign, democratic republic and to secure justice, liberty, equality, and fraternity for all its citizens. The Supreme Court of India, in the landmark case Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, elevated the status of the Preamble and its objectives, recognizing them as part of the Constitution's basic structure. Article 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty, stating that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law.
" While the language of this article is framed negatively, it confers the fundamental right to life and liberty upon every individual. Foreign nationals are also entitled to these rights, as affirmed in the case of Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das4. The principle that "justice delayed is justice denied" underscores that unreasonable delays in the justice system lead to the denial of justice. The right to life and personal liberty under Article
21 encompasses life with dignity and liberty with dignity.5 The right to a speedy trial, as defined
by the Supreme Court, falls within the broader scope of the right to life under Article 21. This right extends across all stages of the judicial process, including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. The Supreme Court has reiterated this in several judgments,” particularly in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India. In the case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India6, the Court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is an essential component of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21. The Court noted that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in the protection of life and personal liberty under the Constitution. Article 39(A): Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid “Article 39-A of the Constitution mandates that the state ensure equal access to justice for all
4 AIR 2000 SC 988.
5 Jagmohan Singh, “Human Rights and Right to Speedy Trial”, 26 Civil and Military Law Journal 179-192 (1990).
6 (1986) 3 SCC 596.
citizens, particularly by providing free legal aid to those unable to afford legal representation, thereby facilitating the speedy administration of justice. 7 The development of jurisprudence surrounding the "right to life" under Article 21 took significant strides following the landmark decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. The connection between Article 21 and the right to free legal aid was solidified in the Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar8 case, where the court expressed concern over the condition of thousands of undertrials in Bihar who were incarcerated for years without legal representation. The Court ruled that "there can be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial, we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty" under Article 21.
The Court further emphasized that Article 39-A highlighted free legal aid as an essential component of a 'reasonable, fair, and just' procedure, with the right to free legal assistance being inherent in the guarantee of Article 21. Over time, the Supreme Court's approach to legal aid shifted dramatically. It evolved from viewing the provision of a lawyer as the responsibility of the accused to framing it as a fundamental right for the accused to receive free legal aid. This transformation made the right under Article 39-A justiciable, meaning it could be enforced in courts. The right to free legal aid, although critical, was often overlooked; however, the Supreme Court has interpreted the right to life under Article 21 to encompass this entitlement.
Provisions under the Civil Procedure Code: Section 89 - Settlement of Disputes Outside the Court Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) introduces an option for settling disputes outside of the courtroom. This provision allows litigants, through a court reference, to resolve their disputes using one of the following methods: (a) Arbitration, (b) Conciliation, (c) Judicial settlement (including through Lok Adalats), or (d) Mediation. Although Section 89 is a recent addition, and mechanisms like arbitration and conciliation have existed as alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, these processes have not significantly alleviated the burden on courts. The Supreme Court of India, in Salem Advocate Bar
7 V. M. Balakrishnan Nambisan, “Quick Disposal of Cases”, 2 K. L. T. 2224 (2008).
8 AIR 1979 SC 1377.
Association, T. N. v. Union of India9, noted that clear guidelines need to be established regarding the operation of Section 89 and other related provisions that have been introduced through legislative amendments. ” Rule 5B of Order XXVII and Rule 3A of Order XXIII Order XXVII Rule 5B: Duty of Court in Suits Against the Government or Public Officer to Assist in Settlement Rule 5B of Order XXVII of the Civil Procedure Code mandates that in every suit or legal proceeding in which the Government or a public officer, acting in their official capacity, is a party, it is the court’s duty to make every effort, where possible and consistent with the nature and circumstances of the case, to assist the parties in reaching a settlement concerning the subject matter of the suit.
The goal is to encourage resolution through settlement, promoting efficiency and reducing the need for protracted litigation. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has as one of its primary objectives the reduction of the court's supervisory role in the arbitration process. The Act ensures that any final arbitral award is enforceable in the same manner as a court decree. In P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P. V. G. Raju10, it was clarified that the 1996 Act applies when arbitration is agreed upon by all parties either before or during the course of a suit. However, this Act does not address the situation envisioned in Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, where the court suggests alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods, including arbitration, and the parties decide to proceed with arbitration.
India’s arbitration law is based on the UNCITRAL (United Nations Commission on International Trade Law) model, aligning domestic laws with international standards. One of the key advantages of using ADR mechanisms, particularly arbitration, is its relative simplicity, cost-effectiveness, speed, and privacy, which makes it an appealing alternative to traditional court litigation.
9 AIR 2003 SC 189.
10 AIR 2003 SC 189.
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 The purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is outlined in its preamble, which states: "An Act to establish legal services authorities to provide free and competent legal assistance to the disadvantaged sections of society, ensuring that no citizen is deprived of the opportunity to seek justice due to economic or other disabilities, and to organize Lok Adalats to ensure that the legal system operates on the basis of equal opportunities for justice. " Lok Adalats The Act also provides for the establishment of permanent and continuous Lok Adalats in all districts, aimed at resolving pending matters and disputes at the pre-litigative stage.
These Lok Adalats are designed to ensure the speedy resolution of disputes, including those involving government departments, statutory authorities, and public sector entities, facilitating the swift disposal of pending cases and disputes before they escalate into formal litigation.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON SPEEDY TRIAL AND SPEEDY JUSTICE
Supreme Court on Speedy Justice in Civil Litigation: Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India One of the landmark decisions by the Supreme Court regarding speedy justice is Salem Advocates Bar Association v. Union of India. This case stemmed from the challenge to the constitutional validity of the amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) made in 1999 and 2002, which were aimed at expediting the administration of justice in civil matters. The court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments but emphasized that proper modalities should be established for the implementation of Section 89 and other related provisions introduced through these amendments. The following key amendments were made:
1. Affidavit Submission - Section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15(4) of CPC: The
amendment clarified that affidavits filed under Section 26(2) and Order 6 Rule 15(4) would not be considered as evidence for trial purposes.
2. Limitation for Filing Written Statements - Order 8 Rules 1 and 10 of CPC: These
amendments imposed a time limit for filing written statements, with strict restrictions on extending this time. The Court held that the time limit in Rule 1 was directory, and the court had discretion to extend it in exceptional cases.
3. Execution of Decrees - Section 39(4) and Order 21 Rules 3 and 48 of CPC: Section
39(4) restricts the court from executing a decree outside its jurisdiction. However, this does not affect other provisions that authorize such action when specific conditions are met.
4. Sale of Attached Property - Sections 64(1) and 64(2) of CPC: The amendments
clarified that sales of attached property based on a registered contract are protected under Section 64(2) of the CPC.
5. Notice - Section 80 of CPC: The amendments directed the Central and State
Governments to appoint officers to respond to notices received under Section 80 or similar provisions, ensuring a more organized and timely process.
6. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) - Section 89 of CPC and Sections 82 and 84
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: While Section 89 of the CPC introduced the option of ADR mechanisms, including arbitration, the 1996 Arbitration Act did not specifically account for the court-ordered selection of arbitration as a dispute resolution method under Section 89. Issue Involved in the Case: The primary issue in this case was the constitutional validity of the amendments made to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2000. Specifically, the question was whether these amendments were in compliance with the Constitution. Judgment The judgment in the case is divided into three reports:
1. Report 1: This section deals with the consideration of various grievances regarding the
amendments to the Code and includes the recommendations of the Committee tasked
with reviewing the changes.
2. Report 2: This report addresses the issues raised concerning the draft rules for
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and mediation, as outlined in Section 89 of the Code, in conjunction with Order X, Rule 1A, 1B, and 1C.
3. Report 3: This section provides a conceptual evaluation of case management practices.
Report I: Amendments to Section 26 and Order VI Rule 15 The first part of Report 1 discusses the amendment that inserted Sub-section (2) to Section 26 and Rule 15(4) to Order VI of the Code of Civil Procedure. Prior to the insertion of these provisions, there was no requirement for an affidavit to be filed along with the pleadings. However, the new provisions now mandate that the plaint must be accompanied by an affidavit as outlined in Section 26(2), and that the individual verifying the pleadings must also provide an affidavit in support of the pleadings under Order VI, Rule 15(4). Order VIII, Rule 1 & 10 In the case Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. , Rampur v. The Municipal Board, Rampur11, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court clarified that whether a provision is mandatory or directory depends on the specific facts of each case.
The key determinant in making this distinction is the purpose behind the statute and its provisions. With regard to Order VIII, Rule 1, which sets a maximum time limit of 90 days for filing a written statement, it has been deemed directory in nature. The court can extend this time limit, but only in exceptional circumstances. When such an extension is granted, it is important to remember that the legislature has set the upper limit at 90 days. Section 39 Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not grant courts the authority to execute a decree outside their jurisdiction. However, it does not override other provisions that allow such execution under specified conditions. For instance, provisions like Order XXI, Rule 3 or
11 [1965] 1 SCR 970.
Order XXI, Rule 48, which allow for execution outside jurisdiction in certain cases, remain unaffected by Section 39(4) of the Code. Section 64(2) Section 64(2) was inserted by Amendment Act 22 of 2002. The original Section 64 was renumbered as Section 64(1). According to Section 64(1), any private transfer or delivery of property that has been attached is considered void against any claims enforceable under the attachment. However, Section 64(2) provides an exception. It protects transfers made in accordance with a pre-existing contract, provided the contract was entered into and registered before the attachment. Section 80 Section 80(1) of the Code mandates that a prior notice of two months must be served on the Government before filing a suit, except in cases where there is an urgent need for an interim order.
In such urgent cases, the court may dispense with the two-month notice requirement. The purpose of the two-month period is to give the Government sufficient time to review the claim and provide an appropriate response. Report II: Amendment on Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Report II deals with the amendments brought into the Code concerning the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanism. This amendment aims to streamline the process and provide a more effective framework for dispute resolution outside traditional court litigation. Section 89: Settlement of Disputes Outside the Court The intent behind Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to encourage alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods when a settlement appears feasible.
If the court determines that a settlement could be possible, it will guide the parties to consider one of the four ADR methods specified in the section: arbitration, conciliation, judicial settlement, or mediation. If the parties are unable to agree, the court will refer them to the appropriate ADR method. In the case P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and Ors. v. P. V. G. Raju (Dead) and Ors. 12, the 1996
12 (2000) 4 SCC 539.
Arbitration and Conciliation Act was held to govern cases where arbitration is agreed upon either before or during the pendency of a suit by all parties. For the purposes of Section 89 and Order X, Rule 1A, 1B, and 1C, the relevant provisions in Part X of the Code of Civil Procedure empower the High Court to frame specific rules. 13 Report III: Case Flow Management and Model Rules Report III focuses on Case Flow Management, which plays a crucial role in improving the efficiency of the judicial system. ” The idea is that a judge or court officer should set a clear timetable for each case and actively monitor its progress from initiation to disposal. This approach aims to expedite case resolution and ensure timely justice. Impact of the Amendments (1999 & 2002) The amendments introduced in 1999 and 2002 marked a significant shift in the Indian judicial landscape.
These changes were intended to provide faster, more accessible, and cost-effective justice, particularly in civil cases. The landmark cases arising from these amendments have laid the groundwork for reducing the burden on the courts by encouraging alternative dispute resolution and better case management. These developments have since been cited in numerous civil cases as a model for improving the judicial process. All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others14: Reforming the Judicial System for Swift Justice The case All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others focused on the working conditions of judges within the subordinate judiciary across India. This case marked the third instance of such a petition before the Supreme Court. The bench was comprised of Hon’ble Justices B. N. Kripal, V. N. Khare, and G. Pattanaik.
In its judgment, the Court stressed the necessity of a well-functioning judicial system with qualified judges to ensure the timely delivery of justice, a constitutional guarantee for all citizens. The judgment highlighted the following points: Mr. F. S. Nariam drew attention to a crucial issue — the significant backlog of unresolved cases. The 120th Law Commission Report
13 Yatindra Singh, “IT: The Road to Speedier Justice”, 2(3) SCC (J) 60 (2005).
14 AIR 2002 SC 1752.
also pointed out that the number of judges in India was insufficient relative to the country's population. The report suggested that the ideal judge-to-population ratio should be increased to 50 judges per 10 lakh citizens, a recommendation made in the 120th Law Commission Report. 15 The Court reiterated that a robust and effective judiciary is one of the fundamental pillars of India's Constitution. Without a sufficient number of judges, justice would be inaccessible, which would erode the foundation of the constitutional framework. The maxim "justice delayed is justice denied" highlights the urgency of this concern. The Court emphasized the need for a significant increase in the number of judges, raising the ratio from the existing 10. 5 or 13 judges per 10 lakh people to 50 judges for every 10 lakh citizens.
16 Additionally, the Shetty Commission had suggested raising the retirement age for judges from
60 to 62 years. However, the Court noted that this could not be implemented as the retirement
age for High Court judges is constitutionally fixed at 62 years. The Court also observed the transformative role of judges in shaping societal expectations, emphasizing the importance of their contributions to the judicial process. Supreme Court's Perspective on Speedy Justice in Criminal Cases Hussainara Khatoon (IV) & Ors. v. Home Secretary, Bihar & Ors. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon (IV) & Ors. v. Home Secretary, Bihar & Ors. , a two-judge bench affirmed that "speedy trial is a fundamental component of a reasonable, fair, and just procedure as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. " This case was part of a series of writ petitions, many originating from letters sent by under-trial prisoners.
These petitions were consolidated, and various orders were issued for the release of certain prisoners on bail, where they were required to execute personal bonds for appearance, without monetary obligations. On February 12, 1979, a detailed order was passed by a Division Bench in response to a habeas corpus petition concerning the conditions of under-trial prisoners in Bihar. Over time, additional orders followed, documented under Re: Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. , which set forth guidelines
15 Bakshi, P.M., The Constitution of India, Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi, 2016.
16 Yatindra Singh, “IT: The Road to Speedier Justice”, 2(3) SCC (J) 60 (2005).
for the release of under-trials who had been detained for long periods due to delays in the disposal of their cases. The Court expressed its deep concern for under-trials who remained in jail for extended periods solely due to their inability to meet bail conditions. However, the bench noted that monitoring the situation more effectively would be better suited for the High Courts. Since these courts were better positioned to gather and analyze statistical data on under-trial detainees, they could apply the guidelines and manage the situation as it developed based on status reports submitted to them. Thus, the Court concluded that the petitions had served their purpose and were to be disposed of, leaving further implementation of the guidelines to the discretion of the High Courts. A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak & Anr. 17 In the landmark case of A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak & Anr.
, the Supreme Court issued significant guidelines on the right to a speedy trial. These guidelines outlined ten key principles, particularly emphasizing the duration of remand and pre-conviction detention. The court highlighted that such detention should be as brief as possible, ensuring that the accused is not subjected to unnecessary or excessively prolonged incarceration before a trial. The Court further stressed the psychological, emotional, and financial toll on the accused resulting from delays in investigation, inquiry, or trial. The undue prolongation of these procedures disrupts the accused’s life and peace, adding to the worry, anxiety, and expense associated with the process. Therefore, minimizing such delays is critical.
Above all, the assurance of a fair trial stands as a fundamental principle of justice, as it is inherently unjust to detain someone without a trial that follows due legal procedure. In this case, the Supreme Court also reiterated that a basic rule of justice is that no party should suffer due to judicial errors. When such mistakes are brought to the attention of the court, the court must exercise its power to correct the error. This correction may be made under the court's inherent powers, including the power of review, to rectify any judicial mistakes, provided that the principle of audi alteram partem (hearing the other side) is observed.
17 [1984] 2 S.C.R. 495.
The Court also referenced previous cases to support its views on trial delays and the need for timely justice. For instance, in Veerabadran Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naicker18, the Court refused to send the case back for further proceedings after a delay of five years, deeming it unjust to continue after such a long lapse. Similarly, in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam19, the Court declined to order a retrial after a delay of ten years, emphasizing the importance of timely justice. In State of U.P. v. Kapil Deo Shukla20, despite finding the acquittal of the accused unsustainable, the Court refrained from ordering a remand or a trial after 20 years, highlighting the significance of the passage of time in such decisions. The key concerns associated with the right to a speedy trial from the accused's viewpoint are as follows:
1. Duration of Remand and Pre-Conviction Detention: The period for which the
accused is held in remand or detention before conviction should be as brief as possible. The accused should not face unnecessary or excessively prolonged incarceration prior to the conclusion of the trial.
2. Psychological and Financial Impact: The worry, anxiety, and financial burden that
stem from an extended investigation, inquiry, or trial must be minimized. The prolonged nature of these processes can disrupt the accused’s life, career, and peace of mind.
3. Impairment of Defense: Excessive delay can undermine the accused’s ability to defend
themselves effectively. This may occur due to the death, disappearance, or unavailability of witnesses, or other reasons that hinder the preparation of a defense.” Romila Thapar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Bhima Koregaon Case), 2018 Case Title: Romila Thapar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Case Title: Romila Thapar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. Date of Decision: 28th September, 2018
18 AIR. 1958 SC 1032.
19 AIR 1971 SC 1367.
20 AIR 1973 SC 494.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Cri. ) No. 2018 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: CJI Dipak Mishra, Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice A. M.
Khanwilkar Judgment Ratio: 2:1 Parties: • Petitioner: Romila Thapar, Devaki Jain, Prabhat Patnaik, Satish Deshpande, Maja Dharuwala • Respondent: Union of India, State of Maharashtra Lawyers: • Petitioner: AM Singhvi, Prashant Bhushan, Indira Jaising, Rajeev Dhavan • Respondent: ASG Tushar Mehta, ASG Maninder Singh Factual Background: • On 28th August, 2018, a writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by five individuals: Romila Thapar, an eminent historian and professor emeritus at Jawaharlal Nehru University; Devaki Jain, a pioneering feminist economist; Satish Deshpande, a sociologist at the University of Delhi; Prabhat Patnaik, a Rhodes Scholar and prominent economist; and Maja Dharuwala, a board member and senior advisor at Commonwealth Human Rights Initiatives.
• The petition was filed in response to the arrests of five activists: Gautam Navlakha (Human Rights Activist), Sudha Bharadwaj (Advocate at Chhattisgarh High Court), Vernon Gonzalves (Gold Medalist in Commerce from Bombay University), Arun Ferreira (Lawyer and Human Rights Activist), and Varavara Rao (Political Worker, Commentator, Renowned Poet, and Professor in English and Telugu in Hyderabad). • The petition was prompted by the Maharashtra Police's raids in various parts of the country, resulting in the arrest of these five individuals on charges of abetting terrorist
acts under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). • The petitioners challenged the arbitrary nature of the arrests, arguing that they violated fundamental rights, including freedom of speech, equality before law, personal liberty, and the right to dissent. The activists were allegedly involved in the Bhima Koregaon violence, which had sparked widespread controversy. • The petitioners claimed that the Maharashtra Police's actions aimed to suppress dissent, particularly among activists working for marginalized communities. The arrests were also seen as an attempt to stifle the activists' work in advocating for the poor and marginalized. • The Maharashtra Police argued that the activists were members of the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist), which is classified as a terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The alleged involvement in the Bhima Koregaon violence formed the basis of their arrests. • In the petition, the petitioners sought the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct an independent and impartial investigation into the matter, with the aim of ensuring fairness and transparency. Issues:
1. Whether the arrests made by the Maharashtra Police were arbitrary and made with mala
fide intentions?
2. Whether the arrests violated the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the
Constitution of India?
3. Whether the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was valid
and consistent with the rule of law?
4. Whether the petition for an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) should
be allowed? Arguments:
“Petitioners’ Contentions: • The petitioners argued that the Maharashtra Police's actions violated the fundamental rights of the activists, specifically the right to equality under Article 14, the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19, and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. • The petitioners contended that the arrests made by the police were arbitrary and the charges of terrorism leveled against the activists were baseless. • Furthermore, the petitioners emphasized that the case was aimed at ensuring an independent, credible, and impartial investigation into the arrests, for which they requested the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT).
Respondents’ Contentions: • The respondents (Union of India and Maharashtra Police) countered that the individuals arrested were members of the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. • They also argued that the petitioners had no locus standi (legal standing) to challenge the arrests, as they were not directly affected by the actions of the police. Additionally, they maintained that the arrests were not arbitrary and were justified in the context of the law. Decision: • The Supreme Court delivered its judgment with a 2:1 majority. The majority opinion was given by CJI Dipak Mishra and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, while Justice D. Y. Chandrachud dissented.
• The majority decision focused on the constitutional validity of the actions of the Maharashtra Police, while the dissenting opinion highlighted the potential risks to fundamental rights posed by the arrests and the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
“View of Chief Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice A. M. Khanwilkar: On 28th September 2018, the Supreme Court rejected the petition seeking the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate the arrests of five human rights activists. This decision was based on the reasoning in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, where the court stated that parties in a case cannot dictate the formation of an investigative body based on personal preference. ” The Supreme Court extended the house arrest of the activists for four years, emphasizing that the authorities had presented enough relevant evidence, and it disagreed with the claim that the arrests were made without proper justification. The Court also noted that the petitioners failed to provide evidence proving that the arrests were made with the intent to suppress political dissent.
There were no specific facts to suggest that the investigating officers acted with malafide intentions. Additionally, the Court referred to Joginder Kumar v. State of U. P. , in which it was stated that while the power to arrest exists, it must be exercised based on reasonable satisfaction after proper investigation. The Supreme Court further highlighted that there is a legal process in place to ensure the protection of rights, and the matter was already being addressed by the lower courts. Since judicial remedies were available, the Court held that it could not interfere with ongoing criminal proceedings at this stage. The Court did not make any judgment on the merits of the accusations or the innocence of the accused. Justice D. Y.
Chandrachud’s Dissenting Opinion: Justice Chandrachud, in his dissenting opinion, argued that the case warranted an investigation by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to ensure an independent and fair probe. He suggested that the investigation should be overseen by the Court to ensure transparency. He further expressed concerns regarding the impartiality of the Maharashtra Police, stating that there were significant doubts about the fairness of their investigation. Justice Chandrachud emphasized that the remedies sought by the petitioners were not of a political nature, and in cases of serious procedural lapses by the police, the Court has the authority to intervene in the investigation process. ”
Causes of Arrears of Cases: The issue of case pendency remains a significant challenge in the Indian legal system. Several factors contribute to the backlog of cases, many of which have not been sufficiently addressed by the state and judiciary. These issues have caused the mounting number of pending cases to become a persistent problem. Key factors contributing to the arrears of cases include:
1. Judges-Population Ratio and Judicial Vacancies: The disparity between the number
of judges and the large population results in an overloaded judicial system. The vacancies within the judiciary exacerbate this problem, as they remain unfilled for prolonged periods.
2. Delay in Filling Judicial Vacancies: The persistent delays in filling vacancies in the
judiciary contribute directly to the backlog, further hindering the speed of case resolutions.
3. Minimal Accountability of Judges: There is often insufficient accountability within
the judiciary, allowing the lack of timely decisions and case resolutions to continue without proper scrutiny.
4. Inadequate Financial and Infrastructural Support: The courts are often not
equipped with the necessary financial resources or infrastructure to handle the growing number of cases efficiently.
5. Misuse of Adjournments: Frequent adjournments in cases prolong the trial process
unnecessarily, adding to the case backlog.
6. Court Vacations: Prolonged court holidays and breaks hinder the timely processing of
cases, further contributing to delays.
7. Unduly Lengthy Arguments and Judgments: Excessively long arguments and
judgments by the legal practitioners and judges can stretch cases beyond necessary timelines, resulting in delays.
Implications of Case Arrears: The backlog of cases has far-reaching consequences, which include:
1. Mental Anguish: The prolonged pendency of cases causes mental stress and frustration
for litigants, as they are left in a state of uncertainty for extended periods.
2. Adverse Effects on Economic Growth: Delays in resolving legal disputes can affect
businesses, investments, and the overall economic climate, as people and organizations are uncertain about legal outcomes.
3. Leads to Corruption: The delay in justice can encourage corrupt practices within the
legal system, as individuals may resort to underhanded tactics to expedite their cases. Remedies for Arrears of Cases: Addressing the issue of case pendency requires a multifaceted approach. Possible solutions include:
1. Administrative Support for Backlog Reduction: Providing greater administrative
backing to streamline case management processes and reduce delays.
2. Establishing More Courts and Increasing Judge-Population Ratio: Expanding the
number of courts and judges in accordance with the population size can help distribute the workload more effectively.
3. Framing a National Litigation Policy: The creation of a comprehensive litigation
policy at the national level could help in the efficient management of cases and minimize delays.
4. Ensuring Accountability in the Judiciary: Increasing transparency and accountability
within the judiciary is crucial for ensuring timely justice and efficient case disposal.
5. Encouraging Plea Bargaining: Promoting plea bargaining could reduce the number of
trials and expedite case resolutions.
6. Efficient Case Management: Implementing better case management techniques,
including fixed timelines for hearings and faster processing, would contribute to reducing pendency.
7. Use of Information Technology: Leveraging technology, such as case management
systems and online hearing platforms, could significantly speed up the judicial process.
8. Computerization of Courts: Fully digitizing court processes would not only reduce
administrative delays but also increase transparency and accessibility in the judicial system.
CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS
“The criminal justice system in any country is designed to safeguard citizens against the harmful actions of individuals who engage in criminal activities. A key outcome of an effective justice system is the instillation of trust and respect for the Rule of Law. A well-functioning criminal justice system is a fundamental pillar of good governance. One of the major challenges faced by the judicial system is maintaining a balance between safeguarding the rights of the accused and ensuring the prompt administration of justice. For a nation to build a robust socio-economic framework, it is essential that the judicial process proceeds efficiently and without unnecessary delays at each stage of trial. Thus, the right to a speedy trial, as part of the broader right to justice, is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21 and the Preamble of India's Constitution.
This right is further enshrined under Article 39A. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, “Justice delayed is justice denied. ” It is the responsibility of the State to ensure that no citizen’s fundamental rights are violated due to administrative inefficiencies or poverty. India, as a signatory to international agreements such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is obligated to provide swift and equitable justice to all its citizens. These instruments emphasize the need for equality before the law and respect for human rights. The executive plays a crucial role in streamlining the criminal justice system by protecting victims and witnesses, ensuring efficient prosecution, and safeguarding the process from undue
political interference. 21 For the legal system to function effectively, it is imperative that the courts operate without unnecessary delays. However, it is important to note that speedy justice does not imply a rushed or summary process. Quick judgments by individuals unqualified to make them can undermine justice, leading to miscarriages of justice. Such decisions may eventually be appealed, further exacerbating the backlog of cases. As observed by the Law Commission of India, delays in the justice system arise when cases are prolonged and not resolved within a reasonable timeframe. The system must address these inefficiencies in order to ensure timely and fair resolution of disputes. ” Problem of Case Pendency and Delays in Justice The issue of case pendency is more pronounced in criminal cases than in civil matters.
Speedy trials, which are considered a core component of the right to a fair trial, often remain elusive. A legal process that does not provide timely trial and resolution is not just, fair, or reasonable. The undue delay in delivering justice results in unnecessary suffering for those accused, especially if they are eventually acquitted after prolonged proceedings. 22 A major contributing factor to this delay is the insufficient number of judges in lower courts
across the country. Despite the Supreme Court's repeated orders, including those from the All India Judges Association case, calling for the filling of vacancies in subordinate courts, the situation has not improved significantly. It is now essential that all branches of government take collective action to address this problem, as mere protests will not resolve the issue of case pendency. Recommendations and Suggestions To tackle the problem of delayed justice, it is essential to first understand its root causes and identify areas of improvement. • Formation of a High-Level Committee: A committee should be formed, consisting of representatives from all three branches of government, which would analyze the
21 Yatindra Singh, “IT: The Road to Speedier Justice”, 2(3) SCC (J) 60 (2005).
22 P. J. Abdul Kalam, “Delay in Administration of Criminal Justice”, 3 K. L. T. 1-6 (2007).
statistics related to case backlogs. This body should be tasked with formulating and implementing policies aimed at reducing the pending cases. • Addressing Bottlenecks: Identifying key obstacles that contribute to case delays is crucial. Targeting these bottlenecks can significantly improve the efficiency of the justice system. 23 • Improving Judge-Population Ratio: The imbalance between the number of judges and the population exacerbates delays. The judicial appointment process often leads to courts operating below capacity. To remedy this, retired judges and experienced lawyers could be appointed temporarily to handle arrears for a specific period, such as one or two years. • Use of Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR): Section 89A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, should be utilized to encourage parties to explore ADR mechanisms before proceeding to court.
This can reduce the burden on the court system. • Public Awareness Programs: The government should launch initiatives to educate the public about the benefits and efficiency of ADR. Widespread awareness can help alleviate the strain on courts by encouraging out-of-court settlements. • Improved Judicial Infrastructure: There is an urgent need to create a judicial system that is accessible, affordable, and capable of delivering justice quickly and without corruption. • Gram Nyayalayas: Establishing Gram Nyayalayas to handle petty disputes at the village level can resolve cases efficiently and prevent them from escalating into lengthy legal proceedings. These suggestions are not exhaustive, but they represent practical steps toward reducing case pendency.
Ultimately, it is important to strike a balance between the principles of "justice delayed is justice denied" and "justice hurried is justice buried. " While justice must be delivered promptly, it is equally important that the quality of trials and judgments is maintained. Only 23 N. N. Mathur, “Changes Required in Working and Procedural Laws for Speedy Processing”, 32 Indian Bar Review 337-344 (2005).
then can we achieve the ideals of social, economic, and political justice enshrined in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.