HUSSAINARA KHATOON AND ORS.

Vs.

HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, PATNA

AIR 1979 SC7 1369

1
Submitted To: Prof.Rattan Singh

Submitted By: Gurpreet Kaur

Class: B.A.LL.B. (2nd Year)

Section: B

Roll No: 79/15

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Dr.Rattan Singh who gave
me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on the case Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.
Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar which also helped me in doing a lot of Research and I came
to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.
Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in finalizing this
project.

Gurpreet Kaur

3
 INDEX

Sr. No. Contents Page no.

1. Abbreviations 4

2. Table of Cases 5

3. Facts of the Case 6-7

4. Legal Issues Arising 8

5. Arguments by Petitioner 9

6. Arguments by Respondent 10

7. Judgment 11

8. Observation 12

9. Bibliography 13

ABBREVATIONS
4
TABLE OF CASES

5
FACTS

6
Pushpa Kapila Hingorani (an Indian lawyer) filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court on the
behalf of under trial prisoners in Bihar. In this petition for a writ of habeas corpus a shocking
state of affairs in regard to administration of justice in the state of Bihar was disclosed. An
alarmingly large number of men and women including children were behind prison bars for years
awaiting trial in courts of law. The offences with which some of them were charged were trivial,
which, even if proved, would not warrant punishment for more than a few months, perhaps for a
year or two, and yet these unfortunate forgotten specimens of humanity were in jail, deprived of
their freedom, for periods ranging from three to ten years without even as much as their trial
having commenced.

LEGAL ISSUE
7
Whether right to speedy trial is included in the right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under
Article 21 of the constitution?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

8
JUDGMENT
9
Supreme Court directed that these under-trial prisoners whose names and particulars were given
in the list filed by Mrs. Hingorani should be released forthwith as continuance of their detention
was clearly illegal and in violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

S.C. gave a reference of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India that when Article 21 provides that no 
person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure established
by law, it is not enough that there should be some semblance of procedure provided by law, but
the procedure under which a person may be deprived of his life or liberty should be 'reasonable,
fair and just'. 

The Court also referred to Article 39 A which emphasizes that free legal service is an inalienable
element of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure for without it a person suffering from economic
or other disabilities would be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The right to free
legal services is, therefore, clearly an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just, procedure
for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21. 

It also directed that on the next remand dates, when the under-trial prisoners, charged with bail
able offences, are produced before the Magistrates, the State Government should provide them a
lawyer at its own cost for the purpose of making an application for bail. If any application for
bail is made, the Magistrates should dispose of the same in accordance with the broad guidelines
set by the S.C.

OBSERVATION

10
This case disclosed a shocking state of affairs in the state of Bihar and betrays complete lack of
concern for human values.  How the continued detention of these under-trial prisoners mentioned
in the list of Mrs. Hingorani can be justified when it was found that they have already been in jail
for a period longer than what they would have been sentenced to suffer, if convicted. It exposes
the callousness of our legal and judicial system.

There were several under-trial prisoners who were charged with offences which were bail able
but who were still in jail because no application for bail has been made on their behalf or being
too poor they were unable to furnish bail.

Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India observed that when Article 21 provides that
no person shall be deprived of his life or liberty except in accordance with the procedure
established by law, it is not enough that there should be some semblance of procedure provided
by law, but the procedure under which a person may be deprived of his life or liberty should be
'reasonable, fair and just'. Now, a procedure which does not make available legal services to an
accused person who is too poor to afford a lawyer and who would, therefore, have to go through
the trial without legal assistance, cannot possibly be regarded as 'reasonable fair and just. Free
legal services to the poor and the needy is an essential element of any reasonable, fair, and just
procedure.

Today, unfortunately, in our country the poor are priced out of the judicial system with the result
that they are losing faith in the capacity of our legal system to bring about changes in their life
conditions and to deliver justice to them. There is a urgent necessity of introducing a dynamic
and comprehensive legal service programme with a view to reaching justice to the common man.
I appreciate the bold step taken by Mrs. Hingorani which eventually led to the release of about
40,000 undertrails across the country.

11