Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Right to Speedy Trial is an Integral and Essential Part of Fundamental Right to Life

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a pivotal judgment the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sudhanshu Dhulia, underscored the importance of the right to a speedy trial, affirming that it is “an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.” This landmark ruling came in the case of “2023 INSC 1028” where the appellant, Amandeep Singh Saran, challenged the jurisdictional competence of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, to try his case involving various offences under the IPC and other Acts.

The Court delved into a comprehensive analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), to address the legal conundrum surrounding the appropriate judicial forum for trials involving offences punishable with life imprisonment or imprisonment of up to 10 years. The judgment critically highlighted the limitations of the punitive jurisdiction of the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, in cases involving severe penalties.

In their observation, the justices referred to the necessity of a speedy trial as a facet of a fair trial, invoking past precedents such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak. The Court emphasized the significance of conducting trials before a competent court, stating, “The accused should not be subjected to unnecessary or unduly long incarceration prior to his conviction.”

The judgment also paved the way for a new directive, ordering the committal of the appellant’s case to the Court of Session under Section 323 of the Cr.PC. This move ensures that the trial is conducted by a court possessing the jurisdictional competence to try offences under Section 409 IPC, thereby safeguarding the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Date of Decision: November 29, 2023

Amandeep Singh Saran  VS State of Chhattisgarh            

Latest Legal News