Speedy justice - a fundamental right, says Supreme Court

By T. Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI, MARCH 23. ``To have speedy justice is a fundamental right which flows from Article 21 of the Constitution (right to life),'' the Supreme Court reiterated.

``Prolonged delay in disposal of the trials and thereafter appeals in criminal cases, for no fault of the accused, confers a right upon him to apply for bail,'' the Bench has emphasised.

The Court has requested ``the Chief Justices of the High Courts, where the criminal cases are pending for more than five years to take immediate effective steps for their disposal by constituting regular and special benches for that purpose.''

Delivering the judgment, Mr. Justice R.P. Sethi said ``if an appeal (in a criminal case) is not disposed of within the aforesaid period of five years, for no fault of the convicts, such convicts may be released on bail on such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper by the Court.''

``In computing the period of five years, the delay for any period, which is requisite in preparation of the record and the delay attributable to the convict or his counsel can be deducted,'' the Bench observed and added that ``there may be cases where even after the lapse of five years the convicts may, under the special circumstances of the case, be held not entitled to bail pending the disposal of the appeals filed by them.''

The Bench, which included Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas, on the facts and circumstances of the case released on bail a mother-in-law (appellant) ``on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties in the amount and to the satisfaction of the trial court'' (in Madhya Pradesh).

The Bench also directed that the order of conviction and sentence of life imprisonment - passed on the appellant on the charge of murder of her daughter-in-law (by the trial court on February, 1997) ``shall be kept in abeyance''.

The appeal is pending in the HC and not listed for hearing till date.

The counsel for appellant contended that the position in the HC regarding criminal appeals was that appeals of 1989- 1990 had only been taken up for hearing and there was no reasonable chance for the appellant's case being brought on board in the near future.

The appellant's prayer for grant of bail, pending disposal of the appeal, on the grounds of infirmity and old age had been rejected by the HC.

``It is unfortunate that even from the existing strength of the HCs, huge vacancies are not being filled up with the result that the accused in criminal cases are languishing in the jails for no fault of theirs,'' the Bench said.

``In the absence of prompt action under the Constitution to fill up the vacancies, it is incumbent upon the HCs to find ways and means by taking steps to ensure the disposal of criminal appeals, particularly such appeals where the accused are in jails, that the matters are disposed of within the specified period not exceeding five years in any case,'' the Bench noted.

``This Court, has time and again, reminded the executive of their obligation to appoint requisite number of judges to cope with the ever increasing pressure on the existing judicial apparatus,'' the Bench said and added that ``appeal being a statutory right, the trial court's verdict does not attain finality during pendency of the appeal and for that purpose his trial is deemed to be continuing despite conviction.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Contributors for Gujarat earthquake relief