Miscarriage of Fast Track Justice
Right to speedy trial is the essence of any justice system anywhere in the world, whether it pertains to criminal trials or civil trials. AS being said that “Justice Delayed is Justice Denied”, Indian judiciary seems to be far from achieving such aims.
Table of Contents
- Justice Delayed is Justice Denied
- Speedy Trial as Fundamental Right
- Katar Singh v. State of Punjab
- Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar
- Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India
- Factors hindering Speedy Trial
- Shortage of Judges
- Under funding of fast track courts
- Under training of judges
- Best Bakery Case
- Conclusion
The number of pendency on the Indian judiciary is all time high. With COVID-19 pandemic disrupting, the function of the courts and the standstill of judiciary, the cases are increasing at an alarming rate.
Speedy Trial as Fundamental Right
Although, right to speedy trial is not specifically enunciated in the fundamental rights, it can be derived from Articles 14, 19(1) and 21 of the Indian Constitution. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Katar Singh v. State of Punjab, Supreme Court put the pedal on the medal and clarified that right to speedy trial is an essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty, and although it does not expressly forms part of fundamental right, it can be derived from Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
Further, in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the concept of speedy trial was framed, wherein it was held that “under trial prisoners have been in jail for duration longer than prescribed, if convicted, their detention in jail is totally unjustified and in violation to fundamental rights under article 21. Inordinate delays violates article 21 of the constitution: for more than 11 yrs the trial is pending without any progress for no faults of the accused-petitioner. Expeditious rights is a basic right to everybody and cannot be trampled upon unless any of the parties can be accused of the delay.”
And, the most famous case for speedy trial being Meneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein it was held that “there can be no doubt that speedy trial — and by speedy trial we mean a reasonably expeditious trial — is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art 21”.
Factors hindering Speedy Trial
Shortage of Judges: The major factor determining the pendency in any judicial system is the ratio of Judges to Population. With India having a population of more than 1.3 billion people, the current judges to population ratio is 10.5 judges to 50 million people. As per the 120th Law Commission Report, “If legislative representation can be worked out, as pointed out earlier, on the basis of population and if other services of the State bureaucracy, police, etc. can also be similarly planned, there is no reason at all for the non-extension of this principle to the judicial services. It must also be frankly stated that while population may be a demographic unit, it is also a democratic unit. In other words, we are talking of citizens with democratic rights including the right to access to justice which is the duty of the State to provide”. Furthermore, the report suggested the increase of judges to population ratio to 50 judges to 50 million people.
Under funding of fast track courts: When Modi Government came to power, the major question before it pertaining to judiciary was alarming rate at which pendency of cases were increasing. With the then law commission recommending Rs. 4750 crores to revive the judiciary and decrease pendency of cases, Modi Government hesitant in spending such amount, came up with its alternative and put forward Rs. 502 crores fast track court scheme for a period of five years. Under the scheme, 1750 fast track courts were proposed to be operated @5 fast track courts in each district to clear the pendency of criminal trials. Initially, the idea is good as it addresses the issue of undertrials languishing in jails for long years becoming a burden on the exchequer.
While in the initial year, 6.8 lakhs cases were disposed off, fast track courts were looking as the right path the reducing the pendency. However, coming down to the last year, Central Government stopped its funding stating the reduced number of trials being disposed off by the fast track courts. And the major reason for this redundancy was appointment in these fast track courts.
According to former Union Law Minister, Mr. H R Bharadwaj, the reason for low strike rate of fast track courts is that the fast track courts are run by judges without the passion for justice. “Instead of retired judges, younger blood should be given a chance. There can get promotions and will have a future,” he added in his statement.
Under training of judges: Another major reason for failure of fast track courts are the lack of training of its judges. One of the perfect example of this is the case of Best Bakery Case, wherein the fast track court of H.U. Mahida acquitted all the 21 accused charged with the murder of 14 muslims in communal violence in Vadodara.
The National Human Rights Commission before the Supreme Court question the manner of the judgment, wherein one after other, the eye-witness were turning hostile and the judge did no effort in ascertaining as to why this was happening? NHRC also pointed out how the trial was reduced to a farce by doing away with a detailed cross-examination of the investigating officer who took the witness stand.
CONCLUSION
Time and again Supreme Court reiterated the fact that right to speedy trial is being enunciated under the fundamental rights of Indian Constitution. Former Law Minister, Arun Jaitley went on to add that being denied of fair trial to criminal undertrials is like depriving prisoners of their fundamental right of personal liberty, which is one of the most important right given to the citizens.
However, with the ever increasing pendency, lying vacant position of judges and under training of judges are factors proving to be of hindrance to achieving this objective. Thus, Government had to work hand-in hand with the judiciary in order to fulfill this objective, with COVID-19 posing a real threat to it.