Case Analysis

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY JODHPUR

COMPRATIVE PUBLIC LAW CASE ANALYSIS

Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. V. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna1

SUBMITTED TO : ANAND KUMAR Faculty of Law

1 AIR 1979 SC 1369

SUBMITTED BY: Jitendra Kumar Gautam Roll No 752 LLM (Cyber Law)

Facts: The case of Hussain Ara Khatoon V. State of Bihar & Ors dealt inter alia with the rights of the under trial prisoners. In the habeaus corpus writ petition based on certain reports as submitted by the officials disclosed a shocking state of affairs in regards to the administration of justice in the State of Bihar. A large number of men, women and children were behind the bars for years awaiting trials in the courts of law. The offences with which some of them were charged were trivial, which even if proved, would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps a year or two, and yet they remained in jail, deprived of their freedom, for periods ranging from three to ten years without even as much as their trial having commenced. The Court ordered immediate release of these under trials many of whom were kept in jail without trial or even without a charge as it was the violation of the fundamental right as guaranteed by the Constitution of India against the State to its citizens. Legal Issues 1. Whether the right of the accused has been violated? 2. Whether the under-trial prisoners were periodically produced before the magistrate under Sec 167 of Crpc? 3. Whether the Fundamental Right under the Article 14 & 21 have been violated and speedy trial is included in right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 ? Held The court while dealing this case, examined minutely the reports filed in the form of affidavit and studied the same. The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It is also the constitutional obligation of this Court, as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people. The court further directed the government of Bihar and put an obligation to the Patna High Court to monitor such instances being the administrative head of the judiciary in the state. The court further directed and asked the government to show cause as to why the under trials were in such dejected conditions and directed to submit

a detailed report including the list of courts where the trial is taking place and the status of the trial so being held.

Analysis The court while dealing the case took into account various statistics produced in the report and well classified the under trials prisoners into many groups, such that A. the under trial prisoner who are in jail for period longer than the maximum period for which they could be if convicted, B. the under trial prisoner who are in jail charged with the offences which are bailable because no application can be made out by them as they are poor, C. the under trial prisoner who have been in jail for period exceeding one half of the maximum punishment that could be awarded if convicted. From the list of under trial prisoner submitted before the court, it is analysed by the court that it discloses a shocking state of affairs and betrays complete lack of concern for human values. Further it exposes the callousness of our legal and judicial system which remains unmoved by such enormous misery and suffering resulting from totally unjustified deprivation of personal liberty. It is also seen that there are prisoner who are charged for bailable offences and are still in jail as no application has been made by them or on their behalf being too poor to furnish bail and also they are unaware about the legal system and also due to poverty are unable to engage lawyer who on behalf of them can make application before the court. The possibility of release from pre-trial detention shuts out even in those cases when Magistrate refuses to release the prisoner on their personal bond as they (Magistrate) insist on monetary bond. The purpose of legal system is to protect individual from the injustice whoever it may be. The people have faith in the administration of justice by judiciary which is a branch of the Government. When prisoner are detained for longer terms of imprisonment without trial, or even without bail in case of billable offence, this would lead to a sense of bitterness and frustration against the legal system which kept them in jail without trial. Moreover the continuance of prisoner detention in case of longer terms of imprisonment, if not convicted is clearly illegal and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure

established by law. In case of Maneka Gandhi V. State of Bihar it has been held that the procedure should not only be provided by the law but also procedure under which person may be deprived of his life and liberty and it should be just fair and reasonable 2. The providing legal services to an individual who is too poor to afford a lawyer is an essential ingredient of reasonable, fair and just and principle of natural justice. Also it has been pointed in the case of M.H Hoskot V. State of Maharastra 3 that judicial justice with procedural intricacies, legal submission etc require supportive skill and absence of this amounts failure of equal justice. Moreover Article 39-A of the Constitution of India provides for equal justice and free legal aid, and this incorporates it in the form of constitutional directives for securing the justice. As this article emphasizes about free legal aid making it an essential ingredients of reasonable fair and just, therefore it should be make implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. As Article 21 of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law and that procedure should be just fair and reasonable. If there is no procedure which does not ensure a quick trial cannot be regarded as reasonable fair and just and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can therefore be no doubt that speedy trial and by speedy trial is meant a reasonable expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21. Thus Speedy Trial is an integral essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of Constitution of India.

2 Meneka Gandhi V. Union of India [1978] 2 SCR 621 3 1978 Cri LJ1678