Holding that the constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot depend on the severity of the alleged crime, the Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a stern reprimand to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for its delay in prosecuting a counterfeit currency case, which resulted in the accused being imprisoned for four years without trial.
A bench comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan underscored the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, irrespective of the severity of the alleged crime, as it granted bail to the accused in the case.
“You are the NIA. Please do not make a mockery of justice. It is four years, and the trial has not commenced. This is not done. Whatever offence the accused has committed, he has the right to a speedy trial,” the bench remarked emphatically.
It stated in the order: “Howsoever a serious crime may be, accused has a right to speedy trial, as enshrined under the Constitution of India. We are convinced that the manner in which the court and the prosecuting agency have proceeded in this case, the right to speedy trial has been frustrated, thereby violating Article 21.”
The Court was hearing an appeal against a February 2024 Bombay high court order that had denied bail to Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh.
He was apprehended by the Mumbai police in 2020, leading to the recovery of counterfeit currency notes allegedly originating from Pakistan. The NIA later assumed control of the investigation, claiming that Shaikh had visited Dubai in February 2020 and received the counterfeit currency there.
At the outset of the proceedings on Wednesday, the bench criticised the delay in the trial and urged the NIA to uphold the right to a speedy trial, rather than “make a mockery of justice” by seeking time after time to submit its counter affidavit in the matter.
Furthermore, the bench observed that two co-accused had already been granted bail, with one bail order currently under challenge before the Supreme Court but there being no stay on the bail.
The bench pointed out that Shaikh had been detained as an undertrial for four years, the trial court had not yet framed charges and the prosecution was expected to examine 80 witnesses.
“We wonder when the trial will commence and when it can get concluded,” it commented.
Based on these considerations, the bench set aside the Bombay high court order and granted bail to Shaikh, subject to conditions set by the trial court. Additionally, the top court directed Shaikh not to leave Mumbai during the bail and report to the NIA’s Mumbai office every 15 days.
Also Read:‘Let them resign’: Supreme Court dismisses plea against competency test for teachers in Bihar
Article 21 of the Constitution gives all individuals the fundamental right to life and personal liberty. Through a catena of SC judgments, the right to speedy trial has been acknowledged as an extension of Article 21.
In Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab (1994), a constitution bench of the Supreme Court unequivocally construed the right of speedy trial as a fundamental right. “The concept of speedy trial is read into Article 21 as an essential part of the fundamental right to life and libert guaranteed and preserved under our Constitution. The right to speedy trial begins with the actual restraint imposed by arrest and consequent incarceration and continues at all stages…,” it held.
Similarly, the apex court in Hussainara Khatoon (I) Vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar, said: “No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.”
Another constitution bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs RS Nayak, (1992) underscored that this right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution and is also reflected in Section 309 of the CrPC, 1973; that it encompasses all stages, viz., investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial; that the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay; that the court must engage in a balancing test to determine whether this right had been denied in the particular case before it.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the new code that has replaced the CrPC with effect from July 1, has sought to address delayed justice through some new provisions. BNSS requires sessions courts to frame charges within 60 days from the first hearing and deliver judgments within 30 days (extendable to 60 days) after completing arguments. Plea bargaining applications must be filed within 30 days of framing charges.
The revised BNSS mandates that medical practitioners examining rape victims submit reports within seven days to investigating officers. Victims must be informed of investigation progress within 90 days. To avoid trial delays, BNSS allows evidence collected by retired or transferred officers to be presented by their successors. Trials can proceed without an accused declared a proclaimed offender, and judgments can be pronounced against such accused.
