2002 (4) TMI 962 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Validity of time limits for criminal proceedings as prescribed in previous judgments.
3. Judicial legislation vs. legislative authority.
4. Application of precedents and binding nature of Constitution Bench decisions.

Summary:

1. Right to Speedy Trial under Article 21 of the Constitution:
The Court reiterated that "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law" as declared by Article 21 of the Constitution. It acknowledged the broad interpretation of "life and liberty" and the right to a speedy trial as a manifestation of fair, just, and reasonable procedure enshrined in Article 21. The Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial encompasses all stages of criminal proceedings including investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and re-trial.

2. Validity of Time Limits for Criminal Proceedings:
The Court examined whether it is permissible for judicial decisions to prescribe time limits for criminal proceedings. It referred to the previous judgments in Common Cause Vs. Union of India (1996), Raj Deo Sharma Vs. State of Bihar (1998), and Raj Deo Sharma (II) Vs. State of Bihar (1999), which laid down such time limits. The Court found that these judgments ran counter to the Constitution Bench directions in Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors. Vs. R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1992), which held that it is neither advisable nor feasible to prescribe an outer time limit for the conclusion of all criminal proceedings.

3. Judicial Legislation vs. Legislative Authority:
The Court held that prescribing periods of limitation for criminal trials by judicial directive amounts to judicial legislation, which is beyond the judiciary's power and encroaches upon the legislature's domain. The Court emphasized that while it can lay down principles, guidelines, and interpret the law, it cannot enact provisions akin to legislative functions.

4. Application of Precedents and Binding Nature of Constitution Bench Decisions:
The Court reaffirmed the binding nature of the Constitution Bench decision in A.R. Antulay's case, which rejected the idea of fixed time limits for criminal trials. It held that the propositions laid down in A.R. Antulay's case adequately take care of the right to a speedy trial and should be followed. The Court emphasized that the guidelines from A.R. Antulay are illustrative and not exhaustive, and their applicability depends on the fact-situation of each case.

Conclusion:
1. The dictum in A.R. Antulay's case is correct and still holds the field.
2. The guidelines laid down in A.R. Antulay's case adequately take care of the right to a speedy trial.
3. It is neither advisable, feasible, nor judicially permissible to prescribe an outer limit for the conclusion of all criminal proceedings.
4. The time limits prescribed in Common Cause (I), Raj Deo Sharma (I), and Raj Deo Sharma (II) are not good law and cannot mandatorily oblige the courts to terminate trials or proceedings.
5. Criminal Courts should exercise their available powers under Sections 309, 311, and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to effectuate the right to a speedy trial.
6. The Union of India and State Governments have a constitutional obligation to strengthen the judiciary by providing requisite funds, manpower, and infrastructure.

The appeals were allowed, and the impugned judgments of the High Court were set aside. The High Court was directed to hear and decide the appeals afresh after issuing notice to the accused-respondents. The Court also clarified that its decision does not affect the directions regarding bail issued in the previous judgments and does not reopen cases that have already achieved finality based on the authority of Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma cases.