The Supreme Court has ruled that holding an accused in jail for six to seven years without a final verdict amounts to a violation of their fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The ruling came as the court granted bail to a man charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who had spent over five years in custody without a resolution to his case.
A bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan questioned the necessity of examining 100 witnesses in the case, particularly when 42 had already testified with largely similar accounts. The court observed that such excessive witness lists serve little purpose and only contribute to prolonged trials. Citing the precedent set in Malak Khan vs. Emperor (AIR 1946 Privy Council 16), the bench emphasized that producing every possible witness is not always necessary to establish a fact.
The Cost of Judicial Delays
The court highlighted the broader consequences of prolonged pretrial incarceration, stating that it not only infringes upon an accused person’s constitutional rights but also causes irreparable damage to their personal and professional life. Individuals who spend years awaiting trial often lose their jobs, social standing, and financial stability, with no system in place to compensate them if acquitted.
“If an accused must wait six to seven years in jail for a final verdict, their fundamental right to a speedy trial has undoubtedly been violated,” the bench remarked. “Beyond legal consequences, long trials subject individuals to immense stress, financial loss, and social stigma. Even if found not guilty, they must rebuild their lives without any support or compensation for the years lost.”
Justice System Credibility at Stake
The Supreme Court further pointed out that delays in criminal trials are detrimental not only to the accused but also to victims and the overall credibility of the justice system. The judiciary, it emphasized, has the tools under the Criminal Procedure Code to expedite proceedings, and judges must ensure that trials do not get unnecessarily prolonged.
Recognizing these concerns, the bench overturned a previous High Court order that had denied bail to the accused, reaffirming that extended undertrial detention is a serious constitutional issue.