One such case that discusses fundamental rights, the right to free legal counsel and the right to a prompt trial, that are necessary for every prisoner is hussainara khatoon vs state of bihar (1979). In this historic decision, the court determined that, in accordance with article 21 of the indian constitution, every prisoner has a fundamental right to speedy trial. The case is important because it establishes the foundation of public interest litigation in India and provides a comprehensive overview of prisoners’ human rights.
hussainara khatoon vs state of bihar Case Facts
- The case, among other things, dealt with the rights of inmates awaiting trial to habeas corpus petitions, which exposed a startling situation involving the administration of justice in the State of Bihar.
- A startlingly high number of men, women, and even children were imprisoned for years as they awaited trial in legal proceedings.
- Some of them were charged with insignificant crimes that, even if proven true, would only warrant a few months’ worth of imprisonment, maybe a year or two. Despite this, they were kept behind bars for three to ten years without even having their trial start.
- The court ordered their immediate release, even though many of the people in custody had not yet been charged or given a trial.
hussainara khatoon vs state of bihar Issues
- Does article 21 of the indian constitution protect the right to speedy trial?
- Is it appropriate to consider free legal assistance as a component of the directive principle of state policy?
Contentions by the Petitioner
- According to the petitioner, inmates in the jails in Patna and Muzaffarpur were held in remand for illogical and unjust reasons.
- They are brought before the magistrate during the hearing, but the court issued an order keeping them in judicial custody at the police’s request rather than hearing from the parties.
- Even after their time of arrest had ended, many detainees remained in police custody.
- According to Article 21, there is a violation of both the right to life and the right to a prompt trial.
- A printed piece including the names of the detainees was also submitted as evidence to the court. It made it very evident how the magistrate and our legal system had failed to give them justice.
hussainara khatoon vs state of bihar Judgment
- The undertrial prisoners, whose names and details were provided in the list submitted by Mrs. Hingorani, were ordered to be released immediately by the Supreme Court because their prolonged imprisonment was unlawful and in violation of their fundamental rights under article 21 of the indian constitution.
- In addition, the Court directed the State Government to submit a report to the Patna High Court detailing how well it is adhering to the mandate to offer pro bono legal aid to the underprivileged and destitute within six weeks after the ruling.
- In addition, the State Government was mandated to provide a compliance report to the Patna High Court and release the undertrial inmates as much as possible during the same six-week timeframe.
- According to the Court, a “reasonable, fair, and just” process for an accused individual must include the provision of free legal services, and Article 21 implicitly guarantees this right.
- It underlined that the State cannot use financial or administrative constraints as an excuse to avoid its constitutional duty to give the accused a speedy trial.
- The Court ordered the State to do everything within its constitutional power to provide the accused a speedy trial. In order to preserve and guarantee everyone’s access to legal help, the Court also suggested launching a nationwide comprehensive legal services program.
In this particular case, the Court brought attention to the predicament of undertrials as a result of the careless actions of our legal system and the ways in which fundamental rights were violated behind the scenes. The right to free legal aid and the right to a prompt trial were significantly impacted by the ruling. Thus, the Court recommended that the Parliament alter the bail processes in order to stop this kind of scenario. The purpose of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987, which was adopted by the Parliament, is to raise public knowledge of individuals’ fundamental rights. In order to guarantee a prompt trial, the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure has also undergone a number of revisions. Finally, the discussion above shows how the ruling opened the door for additional rights in a variety of ways.
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
