Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala 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