Right to Speedy Trial is a Human Right; Inordinate Delay Violates Article 21 and Warrants Quashing.

The appellant, a police constable, was accused of participating in a physical altercation with another constable over a trivial mess-related dispute on February 19, 1989.

An FIR was lodged under Sections 147, 323, and 504 of the IPC and Section 120 of the Railways Act.

Charges were framed in 1991, yet the trial remained pending for 35 years.

While two co-accused died and two others were acquitted in 2023 because the prosecution failed to produce any witnesses (who were also police personnel), the case against the appellant was bifurcated as he was not served summons after transferring to Uttarakhand.

The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the appellant's petition to quash the proceedings, granting him only the liberty to move a discharge application.

Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which encompasses the right to a "reasonable, fair, and just" procedure, inclusive of the right to a speedy trial [Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar].

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, establishing that while no fixed time limit can be set, the court must perform a "balancing test" to determine if delay amounts to "persecution" rather than "prosecution".

The inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS 2023 (formerly Section 482 CrPC) to prevent the abuse of the judicial process where delay impairs the ability of the accused to defend himself [P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka].

The incident involved a trivial fight over food occurring when the appellant was 22; he is now 59.

The court found the 35-year delay inordinate, especially considering that the prosecution—despite having police officials as witnesses—failed to examine a single witness in 33 years of trial for the co-accused.

Applying the "balancing test," the Court determined that the offence was neither grave nor heinous, and keeping the appellant in "suspended animation" for three decades without active progress by the State constituted a violation of his fundamental rights.

The court critiqued the systemic failure of the State to serve summons and provide a "reasonably expeditious trial," noting that the tag of 'accused' for 35 years for minor offences like simple hurt is oppressive and unfair.

It set aside the High Court's order and quashed the criminal proceedings in Case No. 545 of 1991, directing that the prosecution of the appellant shall proceed no further.

Furthermore, expressing concern over the "chronic malady" of trial delays in Uttar Pradesh, the Court invoked its jurisdiction to demand a comprehensive affidavit from the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court regarding pendency data, vacancies, and status of undertrials to move toward systemic reform.