THE ICFAI UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN

ICFAI LAW SCHOOL

CASE STUDY ON: HUSSAINARA KHATOON & ORS VS.

HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR 1979 AIR 1369, 1979
SCR (3) 532

COURSE; SEMESTER; YEAR; SECTION

BA LL.B (Hons); VIII SEMESTER; 4th YEAR, C

SUBMITTED BY:
SOURAV KUMAR

ENROLLMENT No. 17FLICDDN02134

SUBJECT: COMPERATIVE CRIMINAL LAW

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. GARGI TYAGI

1
CASE STUDY ON TOPIC: SPEEDY TRIAL AS RIGHT OF AN ACCUSED
PERSON

Case name: Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar 1979 AIR 1369,
1979 SCR (3) 532

Petitioner: Hussainara Khatoon &Ors.

Respondent: Home Secretary, State of Bihar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Judgement: 9 March, 1979

Bench: Justice N. Bhagwati and Justice A. Desai

2
BRIEF FACTS:
A Public Interest Litigation filed regarding the rights of undertrial prisoners and also the
administration of prisons in Bihar. As there were under trial prisoners who were waiting for
years for their trials in court to begin and in many cases the period has extended the term of
punishment that they have awarded if founded guilty.

ISSUES RAISED:

1. Whether the pre-trial detention of the accused for long years waiting for their trials was a
violation of their Fundamental Right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the right of the under trial prisoners to be accessible to free legal services
provided to them under Article 39-A was being infringed because of their unawareness of
their rights.

JUDGMENT:

The Court here in this case of Hussainara khatoon 1 pointed out the fact that many accused had
already been behind bars for a period which exceeded the term of punishment that they would be
awarded with their guilt had been proved. The continued detention of those under-trial prisoners
was thus a very unjustified deprivation of personal liberty to them and was illegal and in
violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. This violate their right to speedy trial as provided
under Section 309 of CrPC.2 The Court also talked about prisoners who had not committed an
offence and have been waiting for years for their trials in Courts to begin or could not be
represented by a counsel because of lack of resources must have developed thinking of bitterness
and frustration against the society. As to the question of the rights of the under-trial prisoners
under Article 39-A the Court acknowledged two main reasons of the prisoners continuing to be
detained, that is lack of monetary resources to furnish a monetary bail with sureties and other as
unable to afford a lawyer to represent them in the courts.

1
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors Vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar 1979 AIR 1369, 1979 SCR (3) 532
2
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973

3
The Court also pointed that Article 39 also emphasizes that free legal service is an inalienable
element of just, fair and reasonable procedure for without this an individual suffering from
economic, social or other disabilities would be deprived of the right and justice. The right to free
legal services is therefore a vital ingredient of just, fair and reasonable procedure for an
individual accused of an offence and it is implicit under Article 21. The court directed as a
comprehensive legal service programme could be a mandate of equal justice provided under
Article 14 and right to life and liberty under Article 21 and also the compulsion of the
constitutional directive provided under Article 39A.

The court held that it's the constitutional right of each and every accused who is unable to get a
lawyer on account of reasons like poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation to have a
lawyer provided by the State if the circumstances of the case and the needs of justice so required.
The court also specifically directed that at consecutive remand dates, the magistrates should
appoint lawyers (provided by the State at its own cost) on behalf of undertrial prisoners who are
charged with bailable offences or had been in prison beyond one half of the maximum
punishment they might be given, for the purpose of making an application for bail. The right to
get free legal aid and speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and amounts
to an essential element of reasonable, fair and just procedure.

CONCLUSION

Speedy trial is essential feature of fair trial, and it is necessary for the accused and for the victim
both. This case is the landmark case on speedy trial held that every Person has right to speedy
trial and it is implicit in Article 21 of Indian Constitution.

The speedy trial of offences is one among the main objectives of the criminal justice delivery
system. There were many provisions have been made in the Code of Criminal Procedure and
Police Act for expeditious disposal of matters at various stages. The speedy trial of offences is
desirable goal because long delay can defeat justice. However, the fundamental norms which
ensure justice can't be overlooked in achieving the goal of speedy justice because there's a well
known proverb that ‘justice hurried justice buried’. In other words, one needs to balance the

4
consideration of speed and justice. It is in one of the essential element of the doctrine of fair, just
and reasonable procedure and now it became universally recognised human right.

5
 REFERENCES:

STATUE REFERRED:

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Act No. 2 of 1974)

 The Constitution of India

BOOKS REFERRED:

 Kelkar's, R.V., Criminal Procedure (Revised by Dr.K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai), Eastern

Book Company, Lucknow 12th Edn. 1998
 J.N. Pandey, The Constitution of India, 1973 Edition- 21st Central Law Publication

WEBSITE REFERRED:

 www.indiankanoon.com
 www.manupatrafast.com
 www.livelaw.com