CASE ANALYSIS- HUSSAIN & ANR V. UNION OF INDIA

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to life and personal liberty to all citizens, and states that such liberty can only be taken away by any procedure established by law, under special circumstances. The right to be provided speedy trial or hear the appeals of the accused or be granted bail while in custody, are some of the implied provisions of this article, to ensure that any person who is accused of committing any offence is provided justice in a smooth and fair manner. 

The Supreme Court laid down various guidelines in cases such as Hussainara Khatoon or Akhtari Bi (Smt) etc., regarding the issues of providing speedy trial and avoiding procedural delays of cases but there was no formal system to ensure that such guidelines were being followed by the high courts and the lower courts. However, in the given case, the Court in its judgment has again laid down guidelines, but with a proper format and has developed a formal administrative mechanism to ensure that they are being implemented to their best purpose in the lower and subordinate courts. It is important to highlight the fact, that these guidelines focus on not only providing for the implementation of the provisions of article 21 of the Constitution but also section 436A of the Criminal Procedure Code which states the instances as to when can the accused be granted bail. 

Although the guidelines such as providing bail to petitioners within a period of one week or obligating the High Courts to issue and monitor appropriate action plans for subordinate courts etc., sound to be extremely effective and efficient, it is important to note the fact that our judicial system however does not have enough resources or the time to actually implement these to the best effect and therefore there are many flaws that can be identified in the measures provided by the Court.

One of the major flaws in the judgment provided is the fact that in many provisions, the Court has simply laid down that it is the responsibility of the High Courts to ensure that the lower and subordinate courts provide judgment and bails in extremely serious criminal offences as soon as possible or at the earliest and has not provided any limit on the time period upto which the trial of these cases can be extended.

The Indian Courts consist of a deficiency of proper judges and other judicially competent officers who may have the ability to take decisions within a very short period of time, with very limited capital in their hands. 

Moreover, as far as the establishment of appropriate laboratories, increasing number of court houses or legal redressal institutions is concerned, it is important to realise that the judiciary already consists of a deficiency of funds, and thus establishing such institutions would be extremely difficult. 

Thus, until and unless these issues are not addressed, there will no use of providing such interim measures to control the situation and the main purpose of enforcing the fundamental rights of the individuals and providing them proper redressal will simply remain a far fetched reality.