Fairness Assured By Article 21 Would Receive A Jolt If Period Of Deprivation Pending Trial Or Disposal Of Appeal...
Fairness under Article 21 and the Impact of Prolonged Deprivation Pending Trial or Appeal
1. Understanding Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
It protects individuals from arbitrary and unlawful deprivation of life or liberty.
The Supreme Court has expanded the scope of Article 21 to include the right to fair procedure, speedy trial, and protection from unreasonable detention.
2. Principle: Fairness and Speedy Justice
The right to a fair trial is an essential part of Article 21.
Justice delayed is justice denied — prolonged detention or deprivation of liberty pending trial or appeal violates this right.
Prolonged pre-trial detention without trial or undue delay in disposal of appeals can cause irreparable harm to the accused’s life, reputation, and liberty.
3. Judicial Recognition of the Problem
The courts have repeatedly emphasized that while the law allows detention during trial or appeal, such detention must not be indefinite or unnecessarily prolonged. This is critical to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is not arbitrary or oppressive.
4. Important Case Law
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684
The Supreme Court emphasized the right to fair procedure and speedy trial as intrinsic to Article 21.
It held that procedural safeguards must be adhered to, and arbitrary delays in trial or appeals would violate fundamental rights.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
This landmark case highlighted the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing in jail for years without trial.
The Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
It mandated release or speedy trial of prisoners detained beyond a reasonable period.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
The Court laid down guidelines to prevent illegal or arbitrary detention, reinforcing protections under Article 21.
4. K.A. Abbas v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 481
The Court ruled that even during trial or appeal, prolonged deprivation of liberty without timely justice causes irreparable damage to the fairness of the process under Article 21.
5. Sanjay Chandra v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2012) 1 SCC 40
The Court held that detention pending trial or appeal should not be used as a punishment.
Emphasized the need for reasonable time limits and safeguards.
5. Principles Emanating from the Case Law
Right to Speedy Trial: Essential to ensure fairness and prevent unnecessary suffering.
Protection from Arbitrary Detention: Detention without trial or prolonged appellate proceedings violate Article 21.
Presumption of Innocence: The accused must not be treated as guilty before conviction.
Proportionality and Reasonableness: Deprivation of liberty must be proportionate and only as per law.
Remedies for Delay: Courts may order release on bail or expedite trial if delay is unreasonable.
6. Summary Table
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Fairness under Article 21 | Right to life and liberty includes fair and timely trial |
| Speedy Trial | Delay violates fairness and right to liberty |
| Protection from arbitrary detention | Detention must be lawful and reasonable |
| Presumption of Innocence | No punishment without conviction |
| Judicial Remedies | Bail, expediting trial/appeal if delay unreasonable |
7. Conclusion
The constitutional guarantee of fairness under Article 21 would indeed suffer a serious blow if individuals are subjected to prolonged deprivation of liberty pending trial or appeal. Courts have repeatedly stressed the importance of speedy justice, procedural fairness, and protection against arbitrary detention to uphold the spirit of Article 21. Ensuring timely disposal of cases safeguards individual liberty and maintains faith in the judicial system.
RELATED Blog
0 comments