Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
HUSSAINARA KHATOON & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA
DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1979
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
BENCH:
BHAGWATI, P.N.
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
CITATION:
1979 AIR 1819 1979 SCR (3)1276
1980 SCC (1) 115
ACT:
Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21-Necessity of Speedy
trial of undertrial prisoners.
HEADNOTE:
Ordinarily when a person is accused of more than one
offence, the sentences of imprisonment imposed are directed
to run concurrently but assuming the sentences of
imprisonment be consecutive, the undertrial prisoners here
have suffered incarceration for the maximum period for which
they could be sent to jail on conviction for multiple
offences. There is absolutely no reason why the under trials
be allowed to continue in jail for a moment longer since
such continuance of detention would be violative not only of
human dignity but also of their fundamental right under Art.
21 of the Constitution. [1277A-C]
[The Court directed the High Court to submit
information regarding the location of Courts, the number of
cases pending in each of them and the reasons for the delay
in disposal of cases to enable it to give necessary
direction for setting up more Courts, appointing additional
Judges and providing more facilities by way of staff and
equipment so as to ensure fulfillment of the fundamental
right of the accused to speedy trial under Art. 21 of the
Constitution.]
^
JUDGMENT:
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 57 of 1978.
Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioners.
U. P. Singh for the Respondent.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
BHAGWATI, J.-This Writ Petition has come up for further
directions. Mr. U. P. Singh, on behalf of the State of
Bihar, has pointed out that the Order made by us on 19th
April, 1979 directing release of Sukhan Sah and Ganga
Prasad, being under-trial prisoners detained in Bhagalpur
Central Jail and mentioned in the list furnished by Mrs.
Hingorani on 16th April, 1979, is not correct, since on
further scrutiny it is found that they do not fall within
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
the category of under-trial prisoners who have been in jail
for a period longer than the maximum term for which they
could have been sentenced, if convicted. We therefore,
recall our Order directing release of Sukhan Sah and Ganga
Prasad. Their cases will be considered by us again when the
Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing on the
reopening of the Court after the summer vacation.
1277
Mrs. Hingorani has handed over to us a list of under-
trial prisoners who are accused of multiple offences and who
have already been in jail for the maximum term for which
they could be sentenced on conviction, even if the sentences
awarded to them were consecutive and not concurrent. Now
ordinarily when a person is accused of more offences than
one, the sentences of imprisonment imposed on him are
directed to run concurrently, but even on the assumption
that the sentences of imprisonment may be consecutive, these
undertrial prisoners, mentioned in the list of Mrs.
Hingorani, have already suffered incarceration for the
maximum period for which they could have been sent to jail
on conviction. There is absolutely no reason why they should
be allowed to continue to remain in jail for a moment
longer, since such continuance of detention would be clearly
violative not only of human dignity but also of their
fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. We,
therefore, direct that these under-trial prisoners be
released forthwith.
We have also before us a list of under-trial prisoners
furnished by Mrs. Hingorani, which gives the names and
particulars of those under-trial prisoners who are accused
of multiple offences and who have been in jail for a period
longer than the maximum for which they could be sentenced on
conviction on the basis of the sentences being concurrent,
though, if the sentences of imprisonment imposed on them on
conviction were directed to run consecutively, their
detention as under-trial prisoners could not be said to have
exceeded the maximum term. We do not for the time being,
direct them to be released unconditionally but when they are
produced before the Magistrates or the Courts of Session,
they may be released on bail on executing a personal bond of
Rs. 50/- only, without any surety and without any
verification of financial solvency. We direct that a copy of
this Order, may be sent through the High Court of Patna to
the Magistrates and Courts of Session before whom the cases
of these undertrial prisoners are pending, so that the
necessary orders granting bail may be passed by them in
favour of these under-trial prisoners at the earliest. The
High Court may obtain a compliance report from the
Magistrates and Courts of Session and submit the same to us
by the middle of June, 1979.
We pointed out in our earlier Judgment dated 9th March,
1979 that speedy trial is a part of the fundamental right
guaranteed under Article 21 and in order to enforce this
fundamental right, it was necessary to have particulars as
to the location of the Courts of Magistrates
1278
and Courts of Session in the State of Bihar together with
the total number of cases pending in each of these courts as
on 31st December, 1978 giving year wise break-up of such
pending cases and also explaining why it has not been
possible to dispose of such of those cases as have been
pending for more then six months. We, therefore, by our
order dated 9th March, 1979 called for these particulars
from the High Court of Patna and pursuant to our directions,
the High Court has sent these particulars in a detailed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
chart and also intimated to us what are the norms of
disposals fixed by the High Court for each Court of
Magistrate and Sessions Judge. But this information given to
us by the High Court is not enough. We should also like to
know from the High Court how many more Courts and Judges are
necessary and at which places, for ensuring the fundamental
right of speedy trial to the accused in the State, having
regard to the pending file and the average inflow of cases
and the norm of disposals fixed for each Court of Magistrate
and Sessions Judge by the High Court. The High Court should
also inform us what further facilities by way of staff and
equipment are necessary in the Courts of Magistrates and
Courts of Session, the lack of which is responsible for
delays in disposal of criminal cases and is hampering the
realisation of the fundamental right of speedy trial. This
additional information, which of course would have to be
worked out on the basis of a proper and careful analysis and
appraisal of the existing and anticipated filing of cases,
should be forwarded to this Court by the High Court by 30th
June, 1979 in five sets and out of these five sets, one
should be handed over to Mrs. Hingorani and the other to Mr.
U. P. Singh, on behalf of the State of Bihar. If the State
of Bihar wishes to contest the correctness of the
information supplied by the High Court or the validity of
the proposal made by the High Court, the State of Bihar may
file an affidavit in reply on or before 20th July, 1979.
This Court will then decide, on the basis of the material
placed before it, as to what directions are necessary to be
given for setting up more courts, appointing additional
judges and providing more facilities by way of staff and
equipment, so as to ensure fulfilment of the fundamental
right of the accused to speedy trial under Article 21 of the
Constitution.
The Writ Petition will now come up for final hearing on
24th July, 1979.
N.K.A.
1279