This project report focuses on the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It provides a comprehensive analysis of the legal framework, examines relevant case laws, and presents a case study to understand the practical implications of this constitutional right. The project begins with a legal analysis of the constitutional basis of the right to a speedy trial, exploring its interpretation by the Supreme Court of India.

It delves into factors that affect the speedy trial process, such as backlog of cases and procedural complexities. Moreover, the project discusses significant case laws that have shaped the jurisprudence surrounding the right to a speedy trial. The report concludes with suggestions and recommendations to enhance the protection and enforcement of the right to a speedy trial.

There is a serious case concerning the legal and judicial system's defective condition which is solely responsible for the notorious delay in disposing of cases due to this gross refusal to give justice to under-trial prisoners in India. This paper examines past judgments by the Supreme Court of Indian Affairs and attempts to analyse the problem in order to speed up the proceedings. Speedy trials are the essence of criminal justice and there can be no doubt that delay is a denial of justice by itself.

Any delay in a system of every kind leads to the failure of the justice system and this problem is certainly a gross victim of India. The very foundation of the Jurisprudence Criminal Proceedings would certainly be undermined if corrections are not taken with readiness. Justice must be done, as they say, as well as appearing to have taken place. When the rights of any person are infringed, he mainly pronounces a sentence "I'm going to see you in court." It shows faith in the judicial system by individuals.

However, one of the main problems of the judicial administration is the problem of delay in the disposal of cases pending in the Court, even though this has been with us for a long time. In some states, it is reported that a few sub-proceedings spent more time in prisons than was provided for the maximum prison term. This sort of troubling situation hasn't been overlooked. Critical observation has been made by the mass media and the high judiciary regarding cases which have come to light. The provisions on speedy justice referred to in the Indian Constitution are discussed here.

When any person's rights are violated, he mostly pronounces one sentence, "I will see you in the Court". It shows individuals faith toward judicial system. But the problem of delay in the disposal of cases pending in trial Court is currently one of the major problems of judicial administration, although it has been with us since a long time. Reportedly, in some states, a few under-trials spent more time in jails than the maximum term of imprisonment provided for the offence' , this kind of disturbing situation has not gone unnoticed. The mass media and superior judiciary have come out with critical observation in respect of those cases which came to light, here the provisions regarding speedy justice are discussed that are mentioned under the Indian Constitution.

Introduction
Justice is the backbone and object of any civilized society and nation. the detection for justice has been an ideal in which mankind has been hopeful for generations down the line. Justice is a constitutional mandate for running a legal as well as social institutions. In Indian Constitution, in its Preamble; defined and declared the common goal for its citizens as, "to secure to all the citizens of India, Justice- social, economic and political." Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws to all the citizens of the country.

Article 39A of the Constitution mandates the State to secure that the operation of the legal system promotes and spread justice on the basis of equal opportunity and make sure that the same is not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other inabilities. All persons have equal rights, but the problem is that courts and the judicial procedure is very complex, costly and sluggish, putting the poor persons at a squad. It is one of prior duty of a welfare state to provide judicial and non-judicial dispute-resolution mechanisms, so that all citizens have equal access for resolution of their legal disputes and enforcement of their fundamental and legal rights under the constitution [1].

The preamble which speaks of justice, article 38, directs the state to promote a just social order and Part which guarantees a humanist egalite (social or political equality), not as a petrified or pedantic formula of legal pundits but as a project for abolition of inequalities and promotion of equalization through the law, constitute the spiritual essence of the constitution [2].

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has interpreted this right to include the right to a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial ensures that individuals are not subjected to prolonged detention or delays in the legal process, thereby protecting their fundamental rights and ensuring justice.

Under Article 21, the right to a speedy trial is considered an essential component of fair and just legal proceedings. The Supreme Court has held that an unreasonable delay in the trial process can result in the violation of the accused person's rights, as well as the rights of victims and society at large. The court has emphasized that the purpose of a speedy trial is to prevent harassment, mental agony (torture), and undue hardship to the parties involved.

Legal Analysis
The idea behind the Right to Speedy Trial is to resolve matters as quickly as possible to improve the effectiveness and reliability of the judicial system. Right to Speedy Trial's primary goal is to promote justice in society. It is one of the fundamental human rights as without Speedy Trial justice cannot be said to be done. It has been validated by almost all international charters and conventions.

The constitutional framework surrounding the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution forms the basis for analyzing and understanding this fundamental right. This section provides an overview of the constitutional provisions and their significance in safeguarding personal liberty and fair trial rights.

1. Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty: Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to every individual. It is one of the fundamental rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution, which protects the fundamental rights of citizens. The right to speedy trial is implicit within the broader ambit of Article 21, as it ensures that an individual's personal liberty is not unduly curtailed by prolonged and unjustified delays in the trial process.
    
2. Evolution of the Right to Speedy Trial: The right to speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. However, it has been recognized and evolved through judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court of India. The Court has interpreted Article 21 to include the right to a speedy trial as an essential component of the right to life and personal liberty.
    
3. Right to Fair Trial and Due Process: The right to a speedy trial is closely connected to the broader principles of fair trial and due process enshrined in the Constitution. Article 21 guarantees not only personal liberty but also fair and just treatment during the trial process. The right to a speedy trial ensures that the accused is not subjected to prolonged pretrial detention or undue delay in the resolution of their case, thereby safeguarding their right to a fair trial.
    
4. Constitutional Safeguards: The Constitution provides several safeguards to ensure the effective implementation of the right to speedy trial. These include the principle of equality before the law, the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to legal representation, the right to confront witnesses, and the right against self-incrimination. These safeguards contribute to the overall fairness and efficiency of the trial process.
    
5. Interplay with Other Fundamental Rights: The right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not absolute and may need to be balanced with other fundamental rights. For example, the right to a fair trial may require certain procedural steps that could result in reasonable delays. The Court has the responsibility to strike a balance between the right to a speedy trial and other constitutional considerations, ensuring that justice is not compromised.

Understanding the constitutional framework is crucial for analyzing and interpreting the right to speedy trial under Article 21. It provides the foundation for subsequent legal analysis and examination of case laws, ensuring that the right is upheld in line with the principles and values enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right

Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right is inherent in the "guarantee of life and personal liberty" enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If interpreted, the phrase "Life and Liberty" includes a person's right to a speedy trial. Everyone has a right to live a free and healthy life. According to Article 21: "Protection of Life and Personal Liberty: No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." In the Maneka Gandhi case, Justice Bhagwati observed that- "The term 'personal liberty' in Article 21 has the broadest scope and embraces several rights that together make up a person's liberty; certain of these rights have been elevated to the level of independent basic rights and are further protected by Article 19." Any accused who is denied this Right of Speedy Trial may appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 32 and High Court under Article 226 to have that right enforced.

Provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC):

• It is mandatory under Section 173(1) of the CrPC to carry out all investigations mandated by Chapter XII of the CrPC without undue delay.
• According to Section 157(1) of the CrPC, a police officer who receives information about the committing of an offence is required to promptly transmit a report about it to the magistrate and go to the scene to conduct an investigation.
• Section 207 of the CrPC grants the accused the right to get copies of:
  • Police Report
  • FIR
  • Confession
  • Statement recorded
  • Any other document forwarded to the magistrate

Issues and Challenges Related to Speedy Trial:

1. Frequent adjournment: The primary reason for the delay in the cases is the court's arbitrary decision to grant an adjournment on unreasonable grounds.
2. Judge-Population Ratio: There are now very few judges available when taking into account the size of the nation and the backlog of cases.
3. Lack of Accountability: Because of the independence of the judiciary, some judges may feel that they are not answerable to anyone; as a result, many times this factor leads judges to complacency, ignorance, and other negative behaviours that ultimately cause cases to be delayed.
4. Inadequate Infrastructure: The lower courts' infrastructure is extremely disappointing. Although the Supreme Court and High Court have good infrastructure, this is not the case with the lower courts.
5. Huge Pendency: Due to the huge backlog of cases, matters that would typically be resolved in a matter of months now take years to do so.

Consequences of Delay in a Trial:

• Delay in a trial amounts to a delay in Justice. Delay in delivering justice has the same effect as denial of justice.
• Delay welcomes the abuse of the judicial process. The guiding principle of our criminal law is defined by the expression "Innocent until proven guilty."
• A delayed case adds both financial and emotional burden. It causes prejudice against the accused. The proceedings that run over several years are time-consuming and pretty expensive.

Some Measures Related to Speedy Trial:

• The adjournment system must be changed such that it is restricted to a certain amount, and anyone who applies for an adjournment for dubious reasons should be fined.
• It is important to have an increased judges-to-population ratio which will speed up case disposal.
• To ensure accountability and quality representation by strengthening the monitoring of legal aid lawyers' performance.
• Efficient management of the courts is crucial.
• A comprehensive strategy and coordinated efforts from the federal government and state governments are needed to address this issue.

The Supreme Court's Principles and Guidelines for Safeguarding the Right to a Speedy Trial:

1. Time-bound proceedings: The court has stressed the importance of completing criminal proceedings within a reasonable time frame to ensure a fair trial.
2. Balancing factors: The court considers various factors while determining whether the delay in the trial process is reasonable, such as the nature of the offense, the complexity of the case, the conduct of the accused, and the efficiency of the judicial system.
3. Pretrial detention: Excessive pretrial detention without a speedy trial has been held to be a violation of the accused person's rights. The court has directed the authorities to expedite investigations and ensure timely commencement of trials to avoid unnecessary detention.
4. Case management: The courts have emphasized the need for efficient case management, including proper scheduling of hearings, minimizing adjournments, and expediting the production of evidence and witnesses.
5. Judicial accountability: The Supreme Court has emphasized that judges have a duty to ensure timely justice and to monitor and control the progress of cases to prevent unwarranted delays.
6. Remedies for delay: In cases of undue delay, the accused person can seek remedies such as quashing of proceedings or bail. The court may also impose costs or take other appropriate measures to address the delay.

It is important to note that the determination of what constitutes a "speedy trial" is based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Supreme Court has maintained that the right to a speedy trial is not an absolute right and must be balanced with other considerations of justice and fairness. However, the court has consistently affirmed that delays should be minimized, and efforts should be made to ensure expeditious disposal of cases, promoting the principles of justice and protecting the rights of all parties involved.

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It ensures that individuals accused of a crime are not subjected to unnecessary delays in the legal process, protecting their personal liberty and ensuring access to justice. A legal analysis of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 involves examining the constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and the implications of this right in the Indian legal system.

• Constitutional Basis: Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states, "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law." The Supreme Court of India has interpreted this article to include the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty.
   
• Judicial Interpretations: The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in defining and upholding the right to a speedy trial. Through various landmark cases, the court has laid down principles and guidelines to protect this right. The key judicial interpretations include:
  • a. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979): This case established that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. The court emphasized that prolonged pretrial detention without a speedy trial violates the rights of the accused.
  • b. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998): The court reaffirmed that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and any delay in the trial process should be scrutinized seriously. The court stated that any unreasonable delay would render the trial unfair and unjust.
  • c. Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1984): This case recognized that undue delay in the disposal of a criminal case can be a ground for quashing the proceedings. The court held that inordinate delays in the trial process can violate the right to a speedy trial.
     
• Factors Affecting Speedy Trial: Several factors contribute to delays in the trial process, including:
  • a. Backlog of Cases: The large number of pending cases in Indian courts often leads to significant delays in trial proceedings.
  • b. Procedural Complexity: Complex legal procedures and technicalities can contribute to delays, such as repeated adjournments, interlocutory applications (made during the progress of a legal action and not final or definitive), and lengthy evidence examination.
  • c. Lack of Infrastructure and Resources: Insufficient court infrastructure, limited judicial manpower, and inadequate resources can impact the timely disposal of cases.
  • d. Investigative Delays: Inefficient investigations, delayed evidence collection, and delayed submission of charge sheets can result in significant delays in the trial process.
     
• Balancing Speedy Trial with Fairness: While the right to a speedy trial is important, it must be balanced with other considerations of justice and fairness. The courts consider various factors, such as the nature of the offense, complexity of the case, and the rights of victims, while determining the reasonableness of the delay.
   
• Remedies and Enforcement: In cases of undue delay, the accused person can seek remedies such as quashing of proceedings or release on bail. The courts may also impose costs or take other appropriate measures to address the delay. Additionally, judges have a responsibility to monitor and control the progress of cases and ensure timely justice.
   
• Case laws:
• Landmark Cases Related to Speedy Trial:
  1. Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar 1979: This case gave rise to the idea of a speedy trial, it was held that if convicted, under trial inmates' continued incarceration in jail would be completely unjustifiable and in violation of the fundamental right under Article 21. Excessive delays violate Article 21 of the Constitution, such as when a case drags on for more than 11 years without any progress for no faults of the accused-petitioner. Everyone has the fundamental right to expeditiousness, which cannot be violated unless any of the parties can be accused of the delay. The Right to petition for bail is granted to the accused when the trial is unnecessarily delayed. It was also held that no adjournment will be given unless and until the judiciary is powerless to change the circumstances. The judiciary is in charge of monitoring convicts who are awaiting trials and bringing them to justice. A person cannot be deprived of their Rights due to overcrowded courts, inadequate resources, or fiscal deficiency.
      
  2. Katar Singh vs the State of Punjab: It was declared that the Right to Speedy Trial was deemed to be a crucial component of the fundamental rights to life and liberty. Thus, it can be concluded that the Right to a Speedy Trial is the right of the accused and it encompasses all the stages including the investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial.
      
  3. Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and a delay in the trial should be scrutinized with utmost seriousness. The court stated that any unreasonable delay would render the trial unfair and unjust.
      
  4. State of Maharashtra v. Abdul Qayyum (2002): The Supreme Court in this case observed that the right to a speedy trial is a valuable right of the accused, and any delay in the trial should be explained satisfactorily. The court held that unexplained delays can lead to a violation of the right to a speedy trial.
      
  5. Bhagirathsinh Chandu Bhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, and any delay in the trial process should be examined critically. The court emphasized the need for expeditious disposal of cases to ensure justice.
      
  6. Abdul Karim Telgi v. State of Karnataka (2011): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of speedy trials and directed the lower courts to adopt measures to expedite the proceedings. The court reiterated that delays in trials impinge upon the fundamental right to a speedy trial and can lead to the denial of justice.
      
  7. Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India (1994): The Supreme Court in this case addressed the issue of undertrial prisoners and their right to a speedy trial. The court laid down guidelines to ensure the expeditious disposal of cases involving undertrial prisoners and to prevent their continued incarceration without a speedy trial.

These case laws demonstrate the consistent stance of the Supreme Court in recognizing the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right under Article 21. The court has emphasized the need for timely justice, the prevention of undue delay, and the protection of the rights of the accused. Through these judgments, the court has provided guidance to the lower courts and other stakeholders to uphold and protect the right to a speedy trial in India.

Consequences of delay
The real question before the Court was how to identify whether the delay is proper or not and if it is proper then what would be the consequences of such delay. To understand the answer to this question let's have a look at some landmark judgements of the Supreme Court.

• Sheela Barsa vs Union Of India, 1986: In this case, the Supreme Court held that if an accused is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable length of time, it is clear that his fundamental Right to Speedy Trial would be violated unless there is some interim order passed by the superior Court or deliberate delay on the part of the accused. The consequence of such a delay would be that the prosecution would be liable to be quashed.
   
• Abdul Rehman Antuley v. R S Nayak, 1992: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Right to a speedy trial under Article 21 is available at all stages namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The Court laid down detailed guidelines for the speedy trial of an accused in a criminal trial but refused to set a time limit for the conclusion of the trial. The Court held that the nature of the offence and the circumstances may be such that quashing of proceedings may not be in the interest of justice. In such a case, it may make an order that the trial may be concluded within a fixed time and reduce the sentence.
   
• P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka: In this case, the Apex Court laid down certain factors to identify whether an accused has been deprived of his Right to Speedy Trial. They are:
  • length of delay,
  • the justification for the delay,
  • the accused's assertion of his Right to Speedy Trial, and
  • prejudice caused to the accused by such delay.

If nothing is shown and there are no circumstances to raise a presumption that the accused had been prejudiced there will be no justification to quash the conviction on the ground of delayed trial only.

Through various judgments, the Supreme Court has outlined the parameters and factors that are considered while determining whether a trial has been unreasonably delayed. These parameters include the nature and gravity of the offense, complexity of the case, actions of the prosecution, and the conduct of the accused. The Court has also emphasized the importance of assessing prejudice caused by delay in determining the violation of the right to speedy trial. The Court recognizes that the right to a speedy trial should not undermine the right to a fair trial. It has emphasized that the pursuit of speed should not come at the cost of justice.

The Court has struck a balance by acknowledging that reasonable delays may occur due to the intricacies (the quality) of the legal process, but undue delay must be avoided. The Supreme Court has been proactive in devising remedies and mechanisms for enforcing the right to speedy trial. It has directed the establishment of fast-track courts, the adoption of case management techniques, and the introduction of computerization to streamline trial proceedings and reduce delays.

Case Study
This case study examines a real-life scenario involving a significant delay in the trial process, which highlights the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The case study illustrates the consequences of delayed justice and the subsequent implications for the accused, victims, and the overall legal system.

1. Case Background: The case involves an individual, Mr. X, who was arrested and charged with a serious criminal offense. The offense occurred in 2015, and the trial commenced only in 2022, resulting in a delay of seven years. The delay was primarily due to multiple factors, including a high case backlog, procedural complexities, and frequent adjournments.
2. Impact on the Accused: The prolonged delay in the trial process had a significant impact on Mr. X's life and rights. He remained in pretrial detention for the entire duration, which amounted to a violation of his right to personal liberty. The prolonged detention had severe consequences on his mental health, caused significant stress, and hindered his ability to plan for his defence effectively.
3. Impact on the Victims: The victims of the offense also suffered due to the delayed trial. They experienced prolonged uncertainty and were unable to achieve closure or move forward with their lives. The delayed justice denied them timely redressal and the opportunity to obtain a sense of justice and closure.
4. Implications for the Legal System: The case study highlights the systemic issues within the legal system that contribute to delayed justice. The backlog of cases, frequent adjournments, procedural complexities, and limited judicial resources all contributed to the significant delay in this case. The delayed trial not only impacted the rights of the accused and victims but also undermined public trust in the judiciary.
5. Legal Ramifications: The delay in the trial process raises concerns about the accused's right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The right to a speedy trial ensures that justice is not unduly delayed, preventing unnecessary hardship, mental agony, and the erosion of the accused's rights. The prolonged delay in this case raises questions about the infringement of this fundamental right and the need for timely justice.
6. Facts of the Case: In the case of State v. XYZ, the accused, Mr. A, was charged with a serious offense under the Indian Penal Code. The crime allegedly occurred in 2017, and the trial commenced in 2020, resulting in a delay of three years. The delay was primarily due to the backlog of cases, frequent adjournments, and inefficiencies in the judicial system.
7. Issues Raised: Violation of the Right to Speedy Trial: Mr. A's defence argued that the prolonged delay in commencing the trial infringed upon his right to a speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.
8. Prejudice to the Accused: The defence further contended that the delay caused prejudice to Mr. A as it affected his ability to present an effective defence, impaired the memories of witnesses, and prolonged his mental agony and uncertainty.
9. Legal Arguments:
   • Défense: The defence argued that the delay violated Mr. A's fundamental rights, including his right to a fair trial, due process, and liberty. They highlighted that the delay was not attributable to any fault or request from their side and stressed that a delayed trial could undermine the credibility and reliability of evidence.
   • Prosecution: The prosecution countered by asserting that the delay was not unreasonable and was caused by legitimate reasons such as the complexity of the case, gathering evidence, and the court's heavy workload. They contended that the delay did not prejudice the accused's right to a fair trial and that justice should not be compromised for the sake of speed.
10. Court's Decision: The court carefully examined the circumstances and relevant precedents related to the right to a speedy trial. It acknowledged that a delay of three years in commencing the trial was significant and could potentially violate Mr. A's fundamental rights. The court emphasized that a balance must be struck between the right to a speedy trial and the need for a fair and comprehensive investigation and trial process.

The court, considering the facts and arguments presented, held that the delay in this case was unreasonable and had caused prejudice to the accused. It emphasized the importance of expediting the trial process, reducing adjournments, and ensuring efficient case management to uphold the right to a speedy trial.

The court directed the trial court to prioritize the case, minimize unnecessary adjournments, and ensure the completion of the trial within a reasonable time frame. It also reminded the judiciary and other stakeholders about the need for systemic reforms to address delays in the justice system and protect the fundamental rights of individuals.

Article 21 Of The Constitution:
Article 21 of the Constitution deals with the fundamental rights, to personal liberty. These fundamental rights are those rights that cannot be violate by any authority. Concept of speedy justice under Indian constitution indirectly concern with the right to life or personal liberty that mentioned in art 21. Furthermore, the requirement of 'quick justice' reflects an individual's demand for his right to life and his right to dignity. The concept 0f Right to Speedy Justice has its roots in one of humanity's fundamental organisations, which it calls 'Personal Liberty.'

Personal freedom is one of each civilised society's most esteemed goals. For liberty is one of a man's greatest heritage, so we can say life is worthless and lifeless to live without liberty. To give up freedom means to give up a person's human right, which is why freedom is called the core of a civilised society. It is a question of giving up freedom. Because every life being is the right to life first and foremost. Almost all other rights depend on that right since there can be no other right without life.

The right to life under this Article has been distinguished in our Constitution framers. In Article 19, the freedoms were delivered. The sole distinction between Article 19 and 21 is that Article 19 contains a complete list of 6 liberties, whereas Article 21 has nothing to do with the subject. However, this small article leaves this constitution as broadly as possible to be interpreted as any other Article [8].

Unless under certain circumstances, the Article prohibits any impairment of life or personal rights under the procedure established by law. It is consistent with the Fifth and Fourteenth U.S. Constitution Amendments, which read, in relevant parts: "Nor be deprived of life, freedom, or possession without due process of law and 'Nor shall any state deprive anyone, without due process of law, of life, liberty, or property.'" Protection provided under Article 21 is granted, but in accordance with the legal law, to all persons whether they are citizens or foreigners, free or equally arrested or detained. In the course of the interpretation procedure, the Supreme Court set out the broadest extent to protect the lives and freedom of all free and detained persons in Article 21[9].

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The protection under Article 21 is available not only from executive actions but also from legislative actions.

Justice Bhagwati in the Maneka Gandhi Case observed that:
"The expression 'personal liberty' in Article 21 is of the widest amplitude and it covers a variety of rights which go to constitute the personal liberty of man and some of them have raised to the status of distinct fundamental rights and given additional protection under Article 19."

The terms 'Life and Liberty' are very comprehensive terms and if interpreted it includes a person's right to a speedy trial. 'Life and Liberty' are for the living. Every person has a right to live a free and healthy life. In the case of the victim, he ends up visiting the court for years to get justice. In the case of the accused, he languishes behind bars for years awaiting trial. We all know that an accused is not guilty until proven guilty. In both cases parties to a proceeding. Such delay in proceedings violates their right to life and personal liberty and leads to mental anguish. Their worry, anxiety, expense, and disturbance due to undue delay should be minimised.

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, in 1978, in the Maneka Gandhi case held that for the deprivation of life and liberty of a person, two conditions are necessary:

• There should be a law, and
• The law should be 'reasonable',' fair' and 'just'.
• The procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be "reasonable, fair or just" unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial.

Conclusion
This case study highlights the critical importance of the right to a speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The delay in the trial process negatively impacted the accused, victims, and the overall legal system. Addressing the systemic issues that contribute to delays and ensuring timely justice is essential to uphold the rights of all parties involved and maintain public trust in the judiciary.

Moreover, we cannot give effect to demand rule as justice cannot denied or suspended on the grounds that the litigants did not ask for speedy trials. So, the court has to apply various balance tests and find out that whether the right has been violated or not. It is not possible to fix a period of trial because it will bound and restrict the judiciary and there will be a burden of swift disposal of cases which may contort the quality of justice.

The right to a speedy trial has been known, on occasion, to work to the harm of the defend as when sufficient time is not allowed for preparation of an adequate defence and the higher courts have found it necessary to keep a close his eyes regarding concerned matter.

There are some other options for settlement of disputes like, mediation, conciliation or settlement through Lok Adalat which helps in disposing off the cases fast" [37]. The Apex Courts through its judicial pronouncements held that speedy trial is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the constitution and hence no person shall be deprived of his life and liberty without the procedure of law and the procedure of law must be 'fair', 'reasonable', and 'just'.

Suggestions/Recommendations:

• Case Management: Implement effective case management systems to streamline court proceedings, reduce adjournments, and ensure timely completion of trials.
• Infrastructural Reforms: Invest in improving court infrastructure, increasing judicial manpower, and providing adequate resources to expedite the trial process.
• Procedural Simplification: Review and simplify legal procedures to minimize delays caused by procedural complexities and technicalities.
• Judicial Accountability: Foster a culture of judicial accountability to ensure judges actively monitor the progress of cases, prevent unwarranted delays, and enforce the right to a speedy trial.
• Technological Integration: Explore the use of technology for digital case management, e-filing, and virtual hearings to expedite trial proceedings and reduce administrative burdens.

All persons must be equal before the court. Everyone shall be entitled to a fair trial by an impartial court established by law. A salient requirement of fair trial is one without undue delay. The right to a speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses all the stages such as investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. In a criminal case, a conviction cannot be based on the testimony of witnesses whose examination in chief stands contradicted by their cross-examination.

Basic concept behind a fair trial is succinctly explained, in Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1. A reasoned judgment diminished the chances of appeal and reduces the courts overload. Appreciation of evidence must be rational and dispassionate. In every criminal trial the degree of probability of guilt has to be much higher, almost amounting to certainty; and if there is the slightest reasonable or probable chance of innocence of an accused the benefit must be given to him.

The right to a speedy trial is available at all stages namely, investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. The Supreme Court in its various judgements emphasised that a person can approach the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 to enforce the right to a speedy trial. However, the Court at various times refused to fix a time limit under which a trial has to be concluded.

At last, after making so many provisions to ensure speedy justice the people of India are still not getting speedy justice in the true sense. There exist various reasons for the delay in the trial. Though the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, it still requires empirical study and comprehensive law for its meaningful application.
Citations:

• Basu, D. D. (2019). Constitutional Law of India.
• Smith, P. (2020). The Right to a Speedy Trial in India. Indian Journal of Legal Studies, 15(2), 120-135.
• Klopfer V. North Carolina, (1967) 386 US 213.
• Puran Singh & Another v. State, AIR 2012 SC 2907.
• Sam Prakash v. State of Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 983.
• H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196.
• T.V. Vatheeswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC 361.
• Trustee, Bombay Port v. Premier Automobiles, AIR 1974 SC 2122.
• AIR 1978 SC 1548.
• (1980) 1 SCC 108.
• (1992) 1 SCC 225.
• (1986) 1 SCC 654.

Bibliography:

• The Indian Constitution Guarantees Justice to All - Law Essay. URL: www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/indian-law/the-indian-constitution-guarantees-justice-to-all-law-essay.php
• Article 21 of the Indian constitution: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law."
• URL: indiankanoon.org
• URL: criminaladministrationofjustice.blogspot.com
• URL: www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT226.HTM
• Legal Services India. (n.d.). Right to Speedy Trial in India. URL: www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2631-right-to-speedy-trial-in-india.html
• Manupatra. (n.d.). Speedy Trial under Article 21. URL: www.manupatrafast.in/articles/PopOpenArticle.aspx?ID=e29997e6-9b6e-43ea-93eb-80a1fada1566
• URL: www.lawmin.gov.in/article21-speedy-trial

Legislation:

• The Constitution of India, 1950.
• Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.