9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Enforcement of the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial. 2. Quashing of Sessions Trial No. SC1/06. Summary: 1. Enforcement of the Petitioner's Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial: The petitioners, accused in the assassination of the then Union Railway Minister, filed Criminal Writ Petitions u/s Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking enforcement of their fundamental right to a "speedy trial" and quashing of the ongoing trial, which has been pending for over 37 years. The petitioners argued that the prolonged delay violated their right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. They contended that the delay caused undue prejudice to them and their families, and that the systemic failure to complete the trial within a reasonable time warranted quashing the proceedings. The Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 and encompasses all stages of criminal proceedings. However, it emphasized that delays attributable to the accused or systemic issues beyond the prosecution's control do not necessarily violate this right. The Court noted the guidelines from previous judgments, particularly Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, which outlined factors to consider in determining whether a delay violated the right to a speedy trial. These factors include the reasons for the delay, the complexity of the case, and the conduct of both the prosecution and the accused. 2. Quashing of Sessions Trial No. SC1/06: The petitioners sought quashing of the trial due to the inordinate delay. The Court examined the reasons for the delay and found that the prosecution was not responsible for the majority of the delay, which was largely attributable to the accused's actions and systemic issues. The Court emphasized that the mere passage of time is not sufficient to establish a violation of the right to a speedy trial. It held that the delay must be weighed against other factors, including the reasons for the delay and the conduct of the parties involved. The Court concluded that the delay in this case, though lengthy, did not warrant quashing the trial. It directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial on a day-to-day basis without granting unnecessary adjournments. The Court dismissed the writ petitions, affirming that the right to a speedy trial must be balanced with the need to ensure justice is served. Separate Judgment: Justice C.K. Prasad concurred with the judgment but added his observations, emphasizing the importance of following the precedents set by the Constitution Bench in Abdul Rehman Antulay and P. Ramachandra Rao. He reiterated that the trial cannot be terminated merely on the ground of delay without considering the reasons for the delay.
|
