Prolonged Detention Of Under-Trials Violation Of Article 21: Manipur HC
Prolonged Detention of Under-Trials Violates Article 21: Manipur High Court
1. Legal Context
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
This includes the right to a speedy trial and protection against arbitrary or prolonged detention.
Undertrials are persons accused of a crime but not yet convicted and are presumed innocent.
Prolonged detention without trial or conviction violates the fundamental right and amounts to deprivation of liberty without due process.
2. Position of the Manipur High Court
The Manipur High Court has repeatedly emphasized that delays in trial or investigation resulting in prolonged undertrial detention are unconstitutional.
The Court has highlighted that unnecessary detention causes mental agony, social stigma, and infringement of dignity.
It has directed authorities to expedite trials and release undertrials who have already served longer detention than the maximum sentence for the alleged offence.
The Court insists on adherence to the principles of fairness, justice, and speedy trial under Article 21.
3. Reasons for Prohibition of Prolonged Detention
Presumption of innocence: Undertrials are legally innocent until proven guilty.
Right to liberty: Detention is an exception, not the rule, and must be justified.
Avoiding misuse: Prevents misuse of power by authorities to detain persons indefinitely.
Deterrent to systemic delays: Encourages judicial and prosecutorial systems to avoid unnecessary delays.
4. Relevant Case Laws
A. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369
Landmark judgment that recognized the right to speedy trial as part of Article 21.
Ordered the release of undertrial prisoners detained beyond the maximum sentence for their alleged offences.
B. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) AIR 1675
Reinforced the right of prisoners and undertrials against inhuman treatment and unjust detention.
Stressed dignity and liberty as part of Article 21.
C. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 416
Laid down guidelines to prevent unlawful detention and custodial torture.
Strengthened safeguards protecting undertrials’ rights.
D. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) AIR 1773
Court took suo moto cognizance of prolonged undertrial detention, emphasizing constitutional protections.
E. Manipur High Court Judgments
The Manipur HC has directed release of undertrials who have been detained for prolonged periods without trial or conviction.
Emphasized speedy trials and compensation in certain cases.
Cited constitutional guarantees of liberty and dignity under Article 21.
5. Legal Provisions Relevant to Undertrial Detention
Section 167 CrPC: Limits pre-trial detention to a maximum of 90 days in serious offences.
Section 436 CrPC: Provides for bail of undertrials.
Judicial powers under Article 226 and Article 32 to enforce fundamental rights.
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Guarantee | Article 21: Right to life and liberty, speedy trial |
| Issue | Prolonged detention of undertrials violates Article 21 |
| Court’s Position (Manipur HC) | Directed release of undertrials detained beyond reasonable time |
| Key Reasons | Presumption of innocence, prevention of abuse |
| Legal Remedies | Bail, directions for speedy trial, compensation |
| Landmark Cases | Hussainara Khatoon, Sunil Batra, D.K. Basu |
7. Conclusion
The Manipur High Court strongly upholds that prolonged detention of undertrial prisoners without trial is a grave violation of Article 21. The right to personal liberty and fair trial demands that such detention be limited, and authorities must ensure timely justice. This principle protects innocent individuals from the hardship and stigma of extended incarceration without conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments