Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation...
Satender Kumar Antil VS Central Bureau of Investigation - 2022 7 Supreme 641 : The Supreme Court has held that speedy trial, defined as a reasonably expeditious trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that a procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of liberty cannot be ''''reasonable, fair or just'''' unless it ensures a speedy trial. Therefore, a delay in trial that is unduly long constitutes a violation of the fundamental right under Article 21. The Court further noted that even though speedy trial is not explicitly enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21, as interpreted in Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India. The Court also observed that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice, and a delay of one year or more in commencement of trial is unacceptable, with delays of 3, 5, 7, or even 10 years being particularly egregious.Checking relevance for RANJAN DWIVEDI VS C. B. I. ...
RANJAN DWIVEDI VS C. B. I. - 2012 5 Supreme 449 : The Supreme Court held that the right to speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which is an essential part of the right to life and liberty. The Court emphasized that this right encompasses all stages of criminal proceedings—investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and re-trial. While undue delay may violate this right, the Court stressed that the mere length of delay is not sufficient to establish a violation; instead, a balancing test must be applied considering four factors: (1) length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) assertion of the right by the accused, and (4) prejudice caused to the accused. The Court further clarified that the prosecution cannot be held responsible for delays caused by the accused or their counsel, and that the accused cannot benefit from causing delay and then invoke the right to speedy trial. In this case, the delay of over 37 years was attributed to the accused and other parties, not the prosecution, and thus did not constitute a violation of the right to speedy trial. The Court dismissed the writ petitions and directed the trial judge to conclude the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.Checking relevance for Moti Lal Saraf VS State Of J & K...
Moti Lal Saraf VS State Of J & K - 2006 7 Supreme 684 : The Supreme Court has held that delay in trial constitutes a violation of the right to speedy trial, which is an essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the right to speedy trial begins with actual restraint imposed by arrest and continues at all stages—investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision. Inordinate and oppressive delay, particularly when no witness has been examined by the prosecution for over 26 years without any lapse on the part of the accused, amounts to an abuse of the process of law and warrants quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court reiterated that no general time limit can be fixed, and each case must be examined on its own facts and circumstances, but where delay is so excessive that it becomes unjust and oppressive, it violates Article 21.Checking relevance for State Of Maharashtra VS Champalal Punjaji Shah...
State Of Maharashtra VS Champalal Punjaji Shah - 1981 0 Supreme(SC) 378 : The Supreme Court of India held that a delay in trial, particularly when caused by the accused''''s own tactics, may not necessarily violate the right to life and liberty under Article 21. However, if the delay is so prolonged that it prejudices the accused''''s ability to mount a fair defence—such as through vanishing witnesses or fading memories—it can amount to a violation of the right to a fair trial, which is implicit in Article 21. The Court emphasized that while speedy trial is not expressly guaranteed in the Indian Constitution, it is an essential component of a fair trial and thus part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court further noted that in cases where the delay is attributable to the accused, or where no prejudice is shown, the right to a speedy trial may not be violated. Nonetheless, undue delay that results in prejudice to the accused may lead to the dismissal of the complaint or quashing of conviction, especially when the delay is not justified and undermines the fairness of the trial.Checking relevance for Abdul Rehman Antulay VS R. S. Nayak...
Abdul Rehman Antulay VS R. S. Nayak - 1991 0 Supreme(SC) 713 : The Supreme Court has held that undue delay in trial constitutes a violation of the right to speedy trial, which is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In the Hussainara Khatoon cases (1979), the Court declared that the right to speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21. The Court emphasized that a procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial cannot be considered ''''reasonable, fair or just'''' and thus violates Article 21. The Court further held that delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice, and that any accused denied this right is entitled to approach the Court for enforcement. The Court also affirmed that the State has a constitutional obligation to ensure speedy trial and may be directed to take positive measures such as setting up new courts, appointing additional judges, and strengthening investigative machinery. In cases where delay is excessive and not attributable to the accused, the Court has quashed proceedings, particularly where charge-sheets were not filed within the period of limitation under Section 468 of the CrPC.
