HUSSAINARA KHATOON V Home Secretary, STATE OF BIHAR

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

TITLE: HUSSAINARA KHATOON V Home Secretary, STATE OF BIHAR

CITATION: 1979 AIR 1369

DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 9 MARCH, 1979

PETITIONER: HUSSAINARA KHATOON

RESPONDENT: Home Secretary, STATE OF BIHAR

BENCH: N. BHAGWATI, P.N DESAI, D.A.

ACTS INVOLVED: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IMPORTANT SECTION: ARTICLE 21 AND ARTICLE 39(A) OF THE INDIAN

CONSTITUTION

BACKGROUND

A well- known landmark judgement case which gave wider interpretation of Article 21
and held that speedy trial is that the fundamental right of every citizen. This landmark
case emphasized upon speedy trial and free legal aid for the effective administration
of justice and equality among the citizens. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that "no person shall be bereft of his life and personal liberty except according to the
procedure established by law". within the absence of speedy trial, justice can't be
administered.

FACTS OF THE CASE

A writ petition habeas corpus was filed before the court under Article 32 of the Indian
Constitution. This writ petition was also filed before the court. because it was for the
release of 17 under trial prisoners. It depicted a sorrowful picture of the administration
of justice within the state of Bihar. an outsized number of persons which even included
mainly the categories like women, children, and other deprived categories of poor
section and that they all were locked behind the bars and were seeking for the trial as
well as their release. Thus, the State of Bihar was advised to file a revised chart which
was focused in clearly mentions the year- wise break- from the under- trial prisoners
after segregating the prisoners into two categories that is ones charged with minor
offences and others who have been charged with major offences, but although this
direction was not carried by the state. The petition acknowledged that the under- trial
prisoners who have done minor offences as they were imprisoned for quite 10 years.
Those people were considered to the poorest strata who weren't even able to afford
an advocate and also, they were refused to grant bail.

ISSUES RAISED ARE

The issues raised in this case were:

1. Whether the supply of free legal aid be enforced by law?

2. Whether right to speedy trial come within the ambit of Article 21?
3. what's the essence of speedy trial under criminal justice?

PROVISIONS

• Article 21, of the Indian Constitution

• Article 39A, of the Indian Constitution

CONTENTIONS OF COUNSELS OF BOTH THE PARTIES

In the counter- affidavit the respondents submitted that many under trial prisoners,
petitioners etc. herein confined within the Patna Central Jail, Muzaffarpur Central Jail
and Ranchi Central Jail as they need been produced before the Magistrate and were
given judicial custody again and again. However, the honorable court didn't find this
averment to be true on the respondents who were not able to produce or present
those dates on which these under- trial prisoners who were made to be remanded. To
justify the increasing number of pending cases, many arguments and counter
questions were raised before the honorable court. Respondents contended that it
mainly occurred due to the happening of delay in receipt of opinions from the experts.
There occurs delay in receipt of opinions from the experts. The court rejected this
contention because State can always introduce and amend new and best alternative
methods for the effective administration of justice. the opposite reason of their
contention was their poverty, due to that they could not even seek for their bail, just
like the rich men in the society. However, the honorable court rejected the contentions
on the grounds that State can employ alternative methods for the identical .

JUDGEMENT

The court observed the above case and also directed that the under -trial prisoners
whose name and particulars were filed by Mrs. Hingorani should be released. it had
been because imprisonment like false imprisonment were considered to be an illegal
and also violative of their Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. The court also mandated that in the time of charging bailable offences,
they need to be produced before the Magistrate on remand dates. The government
ought to name a legal advisor at their own expenses for making an application for bail.
a quick trial is much required for securing justice. The court also ordered both the
government as well as High Court to display the particulars regarding the location of
the courts of magistrate and court of sessions in the State of Bihar along with the cases
pending in each court on 31st December, 1978. They were also asked to state the
rationale of pendency of cases. On next remand dates the under- trial prisoners should
be produced before the court in order that the state government must ought to
designate a lawyer of its own expense. The state cannot avoid its constitutional
obligation to supply speedy trial to the accused by the way of pleading. Free legal
service to the poor and therefore the needy people is an essential elementary factor
of legal aid. Another direction by the honorable court was to supply the under- trial
prisoners charged with bailable offences, free legal aid by the state, on their next
remanded dates before the Magistrates. The court further observed that detaining
them for any long would be illegal and is clearly against the elemental rights under
Article 21 as these prisoners are behind the bars. Although nowadays human rights
are being demanded for everyone in this world but are these under- trial prisoners not
to be protected from such harm or even torture, in fact they too are human rights
hence their rights must not be denied. Equal access to justice must be central point
which has to be given due recognition.

RATIONALE BEHIND THE JUDGEMENT

As per Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that "no person shall be bereft of his
life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established by law which ought
to be reasonable, fair and just". Here the State cannot deny the constitutional rights
even all the humans do have their own human rights to be preserved. Article 39A may
be a constitutional directive that stress upon free legal service. it's depicted as an
inalienable element regarding reasonable, just and fair procedure. within the absence
of, it'll result in denial of justice among the poor sections of the society.

The court realized the plight of under- trial prisoners whose denial of rights. Court
gave stress upon unable to interact a lawyer and disregarding human rights were the
main issues which have focused and also to be solved. The court realized the denial
and disregarding nature of private liberty. The court also found that the under - trial
prisoners of whose list which was filed before the court, they need been in jail for a
longer period. Even the period of time was too long enough than the prescribed time
range that they could have been sentenced to jail if convicted.

The court recommend the State also as Central Government, by directing them to list
out the entire number of cases, location of courts of magistrates and courts of session.
Mainly the Articles include Article 14, Article 39A and Article 21. Honorable Supreme
Court of India held that the State cannot deny the constitutional right of speedy trial
and equal access to justice shouldn't be denied on any grounds. This, case motivated
various lawyers to boost their voice against the denial of rights which are fundamental
in nature.
CASE ANALYSIS

As per Article 21 speedy trial is taken into account as fundamental right and basic right.
although the Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights also provides that a
person arrested and detained shall be entitled to a trial within a reasonable period.
Speedy trial is constitutionally guaranteed right when it involves United States also.
Just locking them behind the bar wouldn't serve justice. during this current scenario
human rights have to be given primarily importance. But the rights available to
prisoners are denied, it must even be ensured at right time. By the way of amendment
procedures and also mentioning of an effective judiciary, justice is often served at the
utmost level.

CONCLUSION

Justice served for several under- trial prisoners and who were released after this
judgement. Even the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was also highlighted
and got priority. Lawyers, scholars and other legal authorities expanded the scope of
PIL. Voices were raised against the deprived categories of the society. it's very much
possible that these prisoners may be acquitted or be imprisoned for a lesser time
period but all this is only possible if they are subjected to free legal aid. Just locking
them behind the bars would no serve any justice to them. These prisoners too are
humans and now the govt as well as judiciary should realize and recognize their rights.
Hence the petitions served their purposes and stand disposed of leaving the further
implementations to the supreme court.