No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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