Justice en temps opportune

What is speedy Justice?

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental part of criminal Justice. There can be no doubt that Justice delayed is injustice denied. The Indian Constitution does not list the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right. Still, it is implied in Article 21, Article 21 guarantees that no one can be deprived of their freedom or life without following the legal process. The process must also be fair, just, and rational.

It is only possible to have a fair process if there are speedy trials that determine the guilt of the accused. The people want Justice that is pure, unpolluted, and rapid. They have every right to get it. But in reality, there are long delays, which is a problem because if Justice is administered slowly, men will convince themselves there is no justice. The Court takes the accused offender into custody while the case is filed. However, due to the circumstances of the case, the accused offender will continue to live in prison when the trial is held.

It is possible to live the life of an innocent prisoner in jail for a crime he did not commit. Sometimes, a legal case drags out so long that a party dies during the proceedings. The constant involvement in court proceedings costs time, money, and energy. Prison violence is an issue these prisoners have to deal with. Inmates, even innocent ones, suffer from physical and emotional pain and often die in their cells.

The right to a speedy court trial, one of America’s oldest rights, is also controversial. The right to speedy trials is a landmark decision establishing the right to swift trials as a fundamental human right. Anyone accused of a criminal offense has a right to a fair and efficient practice. This is a significant decision because it sets a precedent that other countries can follow to ensure that all accused have the right to a speedy court trial.

Case laws

In Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, it is stated that no person shall be deprived of their life or liberty unless the procedure of law has been followed. Article 21 protects against both legislative and executive actions. In Munn V. Illinois, the Court ruled that “life” was not limited to animal existence. In the Maneka Gandhi case, Justice Bhagwati said: “The idiomatic expression ‘personal freedom’ in Article 21 has the broadest scope and covers a wide range of rights that go to make up the personal liberties of man. Some of these rights have been elevated to distinct fundamental rights with additional protection under Article 19.

When correctly interpreted, “Life and Liberty” include a person’s right to a speedy court trial. Everyone has the right to live a healthy and unrestricted life. In the case of the victim, seeking Justice requires many years of court appearances. In this case, the accused spends many years in prison waiting for trial. Everybody knows that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. In both cases, there are parties to the proceedings. The delay in the legal procedure, which also causes mental suffering, violates their right to life and personal liberty. The stress, worry, and cost they suffer as a result should be minimal.

In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar Home Secretary, 1979, a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed by several men and women, including children, who were imprisoned without charge for many years and whose crimes would have only resulted in a punishment of a few weeks, even if they had been proven. According to the Apex Court ruling, the “Right to a Speedy Trial” is a fundamental right implicit within Article 21 Indian Constitution’s guarantees of life and freedom.

The Court’s ruling imposed more stringent bail requirements, humane living conditions, and a shorter time between arrest and trial. A quick test in the criminal justice system is intended to protect an accused from unnecessary prison sentences before his conviction and to ensure Justice for victims. The need for speedy trials arose from the excessive delays in the resolution of cases. Champalal Punjaji V. State of Maharashtra (1981) made the following observations: “In determining if the right to a speedy trial was denied, the Court may consider whether the delays were unintentional, caused by the overcrowding of court proceedings or the understaffing of prosecutors and if there is evidence that the accused has contributed to the length of time taken.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *