Judgment Intelligence
Other- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 9 March 2017
- Bench
- Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Article 21; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 436A; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21
The appeals were disposed of with a direction that the pending trial in the first case and the appeal in the second be decided within six months; the Chief Justices of all High Courts were requested to put monitoring mechanisms in place to implement the directions (paras 7, 27-28).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — judgment dated 09.03.2017
Key holdings
- On a violation of the right to speedy trial, a higher court may direct conclusion within a fixed time instead of quashing the proceedings (para 7).
- Subordinate courts should normally decide bail applications within one week, and High Courts as far as possible within one month (para 27).
- Magisterial trials of persons in custody should normally end within six months and sessions trials within two years (para 27).
- An undertrial whose custody exceeds the likely sentence must be released on personal bond, as a supplement to Section 436A (para 27).
- Lawyers' strikes and frequent suspension of court work are illegal, and High Courts must take stringent measures (paras 25, 27).
Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Abdul Rehman Antulay and ors. v. R.S. Nayak and anr. (1992) 1 SCC 225
Speedy trial at all stages is part of the right under Article 21; on its violation a higher court may, instead of quashing the proceedings, direct their conclusion within a fixed time.
- Akhtari Bi (Smt.) v. State of M.P. (2001) 4 SCC 355
If a criminal appeal of a convict in jail is not disposed of within five years, for no fault of the convict, bail may be granted; High Courts should set up regular benches to dispose of such appeals.
- Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh v. State of Punjab (2005) 7 SCC 387
Bail should normally be granted if an appeal is not heard for five years, excluding delay caused by the accused.
View all precedents (14)
- Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna (1980) 1 SCC 98
The right to speedy trial cannot be denied for want of financial resources; courts may direct strengthening of the investigating machinery, new courts, more staff and additional judges.
- Hussainara Khatoon and ors. (VII) etc. v. Home Secretary, Bihar and ors. etc. (1995) 5 SCC 326
Enforcement of the guidelines on undertrials is the responsibility of the High Courts, which should review such cases and ensure expeditious disposal.
- Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee representing undertrial prisoners v. Union of India and ors. (1994) 6 SCC 731
Where the trial of a person in custody for a grave offence is delayed, the trial must be expedited or bail granted.
- Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand and anr. (2013)5 SCC 202
Chief Justices of the High Courts were requested to adopt a mechanism, by priority of cases, to avoid inordinate delays.
- Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013) 2 SCC 590
Liberal adjournments must be avoided and witnesses once produced examined on consecutive dates; directions on laboratories, disposal of seized narcotics and electronic copies of charge-sheets.
- Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2012) 2 SCC 688
Long delay violates the rule of law and access to justice; High Courts were directed to decide stayed cases within six months and the Law Commission to recommend additional courts.
- Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 254-262 of 2012
Judgment of 2 January 2017 directing computation of the required judge strength of the district judiciary and its enhancement by the States.
- Anita Kushwaha etc. etc. v. Pushap Sudan etc. etc. (2016) 8 SCC 509
Access to justice includes an effective adjudicatory mechanism that is reasonably accessible and speedy.
- Bhim Singh V. Union of India (2015) 13 SCC 603
The Central Government must, with the States, fast-track criminal cases; a further order ((2015) 13 SCC 605) directed weekly jail sittings by magistrates to implement Section 436A.
- Re: Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016) 3 SCC 700
Noted the Ministry of Home Affairs advisory for district review committees to implement Section 436A.
- Ex. Captain Harish Uppal versus Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 45
Lawyers' strikes and suspension of court work are illegal.
