Written by : Mohd. Ammaar and Amaan Ahmad , Faculty of Law, Jamia Millia Islamia
INTRODUCTION
Justice delayed is justice denied. Right to speedy trial is one of the pillars of an impartial judicial process, which prevents legal proceedings from being transformed into means of oppression or mere agony. Recently, Hon’ble supreme court held that delayed in verdict is the violation of article 21 of the Indian constitution.
The Indian Constitution, by virtue of Article 21, provides the right to life and liberty and therein the right to a speedy trial. But due to all the legislations and judicial observations,tardiness of judicial proceedings continues to be among the largest Indian judicial system issues. Backlog of cases, intricacy of procedures, and lack of infrastructure create ascenario that is extremely frightening and horrifying where justice remains beyond corruption or influence.
A slow trial not only causes harm to the accused but hurts the victims, witnesses, and society at large. The victims waiting for justice lose hope because of delays in long proceedings, and the accused are imprisoned unjustly for years without conviction. Additionally, proceedings are delayed that generate a culture of impunity when offenders know that they will succeed. An in-depth examination of causes of the delay in trials, current judicial architecture, and recommended reforms is thus warranted to comprehend and respond to the crisis.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
Judiciary delay is attributed to a series of structural, procedural, and operational issues. They are the by-products of the judiciary's overload, poor infrastructure, and complexity in procedure. Beyond this, the inefficiency in managing cases as well as bureaucratic bottlenecks contribute towards the issue. The combined impact of these causes results in long litigation as well as delayed justice.
1. Judicial Backlog
The Indian judiciary is weighed down by a humongous pile of pending cases. According to the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), there are over 4.5 crore pending cases in Indian courts. This creates a backlog that delays the judicial process, leading to sensational delay in trials.
2. Lack of Judges and Infrastructure
The number of judges per population in India is much lower compared to developed countries. The Law Commission of India has time and again suggested more judicial appointments to enhance efficiency. Inefficient court infrastructure, absence of modern technology, and insufficient support staff further contribute to the issue.
3. Procedural Complexities and Adjournments
Unreasonable adjournments, unreasonable use of procedural technicalities, and inordinate delays in gathering evidence and investigation also bring about delays. Lawyers and litigants too request adjournments with an aim to procrastinate cases, which while statutorily permissible for certain cause, creates inefficiencies in the system.
4. Undertrial Prisoners
Most of India's incarceration consists of undertrial prisoners, most of whom remain in prison for years without conviction because of delayed judicial procedures. Together the Indian prisons contained a strength of 573,220 prisoners with 434,302 being undertrial prisoners holding about 75.8% of the prison strength. Inefficiencies in the system and a lack of effective legal aid typically cause undertrial prisoners to stay in prison for years at a stretch.
5. Delays in Forensic and Investigation
Indian forensic labs are overwhelmed with plenty of reports. For example, as of March 31, 2024, the Kerala forensic laboratories had a 62,558-case backlog of unsolved cases, with around 5,500 Ernakulam cases pending since 1998.Police investigation is slowed down, and forensic evidence is delayed, which further slows down the progress of the cases. Untrained personnel and old investigation techniques also make it ineffective.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING SPEEDY TRIALThe expediency of trial has been established through enactments and court dicta:
• Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Guarantees a speedy and fair trial as an accompaniment to personal liberty.
• Section 309 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 – Calls for trials and investigations to be expedited and discourages frivolous adjournments.
• Section 479 of the BNSS – Releases undertrial prisoners who have already undergone more than half the maximum period of imprisonment for which they are tried.
The Landmark Judgments of the Supreme Court:
Despite the landmark judgments based on the right to a speedy trial, judicial delays continue to be a persistent problem. In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court held the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right. Subsequently, in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992), the Court explicated determinants of a reasonable trial period which are essential, e.g., the nature of the case, the location of the evidence, and the prosecution's conduct. Subsequently, in Common Cause v. Union of India(1996), the Court went to the extent of advising the quashing of cases where unwarranted delays undermined the right of a speedy trial.
However, despite these judicial dicta, delay continues to exist.Courts remain full to the brim with unreasonably heavy workloads, and adjournments are granted routinely without reasonable cause. The pointlessness of such provisions to deliver time-bound justice speaks volumes about the necessity for reforms in the case management system, judicial infrastructure, and procedural pace.
CASE STUDIES
The Unnao Rape Case
The 2017 Unnao rape case was a symbol of delayed justice as it gained nation-wide attention owing to the slow legal process. The victim had to face enormous hardships such as intimidation, threats, and continuous judicial obstacles before the Supreme Court came to the rescue by shortening the trial. Such unwarranted delay in the dispensation of justice reflected deplorable failures in the judiciary, where victims take years to get justice. The case highlighted the need for urgent judicial reforms, as it brought out how legal stagnation and institutional inefficiencies could further traumatize survivors and deprive them of timely justice, eventually undermining public faith in the legal system.
The Bhagalpur Riots Cases
Some of the cases of 1989 Bhagalpur riots remained pending for decades, putting victims and their families in decades of agony. The slow process of justice allowed most of the accused to die or flee from the clutches of the law before being convicted. Delays not only denied justice to the victims but also put the spotlight on structural inefficiencies within the justice system. The protracted trials outraged the victims, and many lost their confidence in the justice system. Moreover, the inability to clear such cases in reasonable time diminished people's belief in the administration of justice and enforcement of law.
The 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots Cases
The 1984 riots against Sikhs resulted in thousands of deaths and widespread destruction, but justice eluded the victims for decades. Most of the cases saw unprecedented delay in investigation, prosecution, and trial. Some of the high-profile accused were evading accountability for years, and some of the victims died without getting justice. Convictions began to take place in recent years only, but the delay had already diluted people's faith in the judicial system to a considerable extent. The case shows how delayed justice not just denies closure to victims but also undermines the general credibility of justice institutions.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
Whereas India faces the challenge of delay of trial, others have developed effective systems to accelerate the judicial process.
United States of AmericaThe Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to a speedy trial, and the Speedy Trial Act, 1974, prescribes specific time limits for criminal trials. If a trial is not commenced within the stipulated time, charges can be dropped.
United KingdomJudiciaries ensure the timely completion of trials through procedural timeliness and prudence on their part. The Criminal Procedure Rules prescribe strict case management procedures to reduce adjournments.
GermanyThe doctrine of "Recht auf ein faires Verfahren" (Right to a Fair Trial) requires rigorous judicial supervision to rule out unwarranted delays. Parties causing intentional delay are punished to hold them accountable.
Comparison of these frameworks brings into relief more stringent time-bound trials, increased judicial responsibility, and improved case management in India.
LEGISLATIVE INACTIVITY AND NEED FOR REFORM
With regards to the Law Commission recommendations, legislative inertia has frozen systemic improvement of the trial process. The 245th Law Commission Report had recommended fast-track courts, judicial appointments, and enhanced monitoring of cases to challenge delays. Political reluctance, bureaucratic delay, and stringent budgetary provisions dissuade enactment. Furthermore, the absence of an established framework in which these proposals are to be implemented continues to invalidate them. Without specific legislation and institutional action, the issue of judicial delay will persist and erode the very right to a speedy trial.
CONCLUSION
The respected Indian judiciary is aware of the importance of speedy trials, appreciation is not enough if it is not followed by effective implementation. Law reforms, judicial accountability, and infrastructure development are required to address the challenge of slow justice. A country's legal system is not only gauged by laws enacted but by the efficiency and speed of justice being dispensed. To the ideals of equity and justice, India must commit itself to radical reforms making the right to speedy trial more than an illusion but a reality.
Comments