Recently, the Supreme Court emphasised the fundamental right to a speedy trial, ruling that prolonged detention of an undertrial for six to seven years without a verdict violates their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. In this case, the Court granted bail to an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), who had been in custody for five years. The Court also addressed the issue of trial delays caused by excessive witness examinations, calling for a reassessment of the impact of such delays on the accused.
In the present matter, the accused, who faced charges under the UAPA, had been detained for over five years without a final verdict in his case. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the Supreme Court found that the prolonged period of detention infringed upon the accused’s right to a speedy trial. The bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, raised concerns about the tendency of prosecuting agencies to examine numerous witnesses, which often results in unnecessary delays in the trial process.
The counsel for the accused argued that the prolonged detention was in violation of the right to a speedy trial and requested bail, noting the undue hardship caused to the accused by the extended incarceration. The counsel highlighted that the accused, while presumed innocent, had already spent a considerable time in custody, with no verdict yet delivered.
Justice Pardiwala, in his observations, emphasized the profound impact that prolonged trials have on the accused. He stated, “If an accused is to get a final verdict after incarceration of six to seven years in jail as an undertrial prisoner, then, definitely, it could be said that his right to have a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution has been infringed.” He further explained, “The stress of long trials on accused persons—who remain innocent until proven guilty—can also be significant. Accused persons are not financially compensated for what might be a lengthy period of pretrial incarceration. They may have lost a job or accommodation, experienced damage to personal relationships, and spent a considerable amount of money on legal fees. If an accused person is found not guilty, they have likely endured many months of being stigmatised and perhaps even ostracised in their community and will have to rebuild their lives with their own resources.”
In conclusion, the Apex Court ruled in favour of granting bail to the accused, highlighting the violation of the right to a speedy trial and urging prosecuting agencies to consider the negative consequences of prolonged incarceration during trials. The Court’s decision underscored the need to address delays in trials and the impact they have on the personal, financial, and social lives of the accused.
Picture Source :
