Liberty Denied: The Crisis of Undertrial Justice in India

                                                 Authors at PVCHR office  

Editorial Comment by PVCHR on the Article

"Liberty Denied: The Crisis of Undertrial Justice in India"

The PVCHR Editorial Board commends this incisive and courageous research paper for its depth, clarity, and powerful articulation of one of the most urgent human rights crises in India today: the systemic denial of liberty to undertrial prisoners. Drawing upon constitutional jurisprudence, legislative frameworks, international conventions, and lived realities, this paper not only documents the collapse of timely justice but exposes the deep moral and democratic failure it represents.

The article speaks with urgency and compassion for the invisible majority—those warehoused in prisons not for proven crimes, but for poverty, caste, religion, or silence. It foregrounds the fundamental truth that the right to liberty and a speedy trial is not a procedural privilege, but a constitutional promise deeply rooted in Article 21 and India’s commitment to human dignity.

The editorial board especially appreciates the rigorous analysis of judicial precedents, the comparative global legal context, and the incorporation of real-life cases like those of S. Jaiswal and Mohammad Anis, which illustrate the deadly consequences of legal apathy. The recommendations are both actionable and visionary, offering a roadmap toward meaningful reform—from presumptive bail to mental health units, custodial death reviews, and the ratification of UNCAT.

We are proud to note that this research paper titled "Liberty Denied: The Crisis of Undertrial Justice in India" was jointly prepared by Khushi Yadav and Aditya Mishra, as part of their learning journey with PVCHR.

I am Khushi Yadav, a B.A. LL.B. student, with a keen interest in human rights and social justice. My legal background empowers me to work towards equity and accountability. I envision a future rooted in peace, dignity, and sustainable development. With law as my tool, I strive to create inclusive and rights-based change.

I’m Aditya Mishra, a B.A. LL.B. student deeply committed to human rights and social justice. My passion lies in defending human dignity and advocating for equality and solidarity. Through legal research and grassroots activism, I strive to be a voice for the voiceless. Driven by purpose, I aim to use law as a catalyst for real and lasting change.

This paper honors the legacy and mission of PVCHR and Jan Mitra Nyas, reminding us that justice must reach the most marginalized to retain its moral legitimacy. In an era where democracy risks becoming a hollow shell, this work is a clarion call: that justice delayed is not merely justice denied—it is democracy betrayed.

We recommend this paper be disseminated widely across judicial academies, bar associations, policymaking institutions, and civil society forums. It is not only a scholarly contribution—it is a demand for conscience.

—PVCHR Editorial Board

People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights

INTRODUCTION

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” – Martin Luther King Jr.

Inside India’s overcrowded prisons, a silent crisis festers—a crisis of forgotten people, delayed justice, and stolen dignity. These are not convicted criminals. They are citizens. Undertrials—men, women, and even juveniles—imprisoned without conviction, many for years. Their only “crime” is being poor, voiceless, or born on the wrong side of privilege.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. Through decades of judicial interpretation, it has come to include the right to a speedy trial, a right meant to protect the innocent from endless confinement. But for tens of thousands across India, this right remains dead letter law—trapped beneath bureaucracy, poverty, and systemic neglect.

According to Prison Statistics India (NCRB 2022), over 77% of India’s prison population consists of undertrial prisoners—individuals who have not been found guilty, but are still locked behind bars. Some are charged with minor, even bailable offences. Others remain imprisoned because they cannot afford a lawyer, a surety, or simply—hope.

When Delay Becomes Punishment, and Liberty a Mirage

The consequences of trial delay are devastating:

• Mental health breakdowns, as years pass without a hearing.
• Families destroyed, incomes lost, and children left orphaned.
• Deaths in custody, before a verdict is ever reached.

This is not just a legal issue—it is a humanitarian failure. A democracy that imprisons people without proof, without trial, and without recourse cannot claim to uphold justice. When delay becomes punishment, liberty dies—quietly, painfully, and often, permanently.

PVCHR's Lens: Justice is Not a Privilege, It Is a Right

As a human rights organization grounded in the values of non-violence, dignity, and constitutional morality, People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) has long exposed these fault lines within India's criminal justice system. This paper is a reflection of that struggle—a voice for those who cannot speak, and a reminder that behind every case file lies a life.

This research explores:

• The constitutional right to a speedy trial as interpreted by Indian courts,
• The impact of undertrial incarceration on individuals and communities,
• The connection between procedural delay and democratic decay,
• And the urgent need for reforms rooted in equality, empathy, and accountability.

This is not merely a legal study. It is a mirror to the conscience of a nation that must decide: will it remain a democracy of rights, or devolve into a system where liberty is a privilege reserved for the powerful?

Understanding the Concept of Speedy Trial

The concept of a speedy trial is a fundamental safeguard in criminal justice that ensures an accused person is tried promptly and without unnecessary delay. Although the Indian Constitution does not expressly mention this right, it has been judicially recognized as an integral part of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has consistently held that a trial cannot be considered fair or just if it is delayed for no valid reason, as such delays can lead to mental agony, economic hardship, and a violation of the accused's dignity. The key elements of a speedy trial include the timely initiation of legal proceedings, quick and fair investigation, day-to-day hearings as per Section 309 of the CrPC (Section 346 of the BNSS), and minimizing unnecessary pre-trial detention. The principle also respects the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty; therefore, detaining someone for long periods without a verdict not only causes personal suffering but also undermines justice. While the right to a speedy trial primarily protects the accused, it also ensures that victims receive timely justice, thereby maintaining public confidence in the legal system and reducing the burden of pending cases on the judiciary. Importantly, this right is not absolute—it must be balanced with fair trial standards and procedural justice, but any unjustified delay caused by the state, and not the accused, may render the entire trial oppressive, unreasonable, and unconstitutional. Thus, the right to a speedy trial serves as a critical link between constitutional liberty and effective justice delivery.

Jurisprudence of Speedy Trial

Jurisprudence of speedy trial is based on a simple principle that innocent (suspect) person should not be harassed by legal system to an unreasonable period and victim should get justice as early as legal system can provide it. Jurisprudence of Speedy Trial can be understood by understanding firstly the evolution of it. Secondly, its legislative framework or how it can be traced in drafted law. Thirdly, what are the reasons for delay in trial? Fourthly, how international instruments are treating this demand? Fifthly, concept of speedy trial as fundamental right. Sixthly, what is impact of it after considering it as fundamental right? And lastly, how judiciary respond to it for development of its various aspects? All these ways can be understood in short by discussing following heads.    

A. Evolution of the Concept of Speedy Trial

The concept of a speedy trial, though prominently developed in modern constitutional democracies, has deep historical roots in India, dating back to the medieval period. During the era of Muslim rule, particularly under Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb, judicial institutions were formally structured, and the administration of justice became more organized. One of the most remarkable legal compilations of the time, the 'Fatwa-i-Alamgiri' (also known as Fatwa Namgiri), laid down progressive legal principles, including that no individual shall be arrested without the permission of a Kazi, and that justice must be delivered promptly after arrest. It further emphasized that no person could be detained indefinitely without proven guilt, and even granted the Kazi the power to provide bail. This illustrates that the essence of speedy justice was present in India long before its formal recognition in modern constitutional law.

However, the modern doctrine of the right to a speedy trial found its most structured and explicit development in the United States, where it was enshrined in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This was further operationalized by the Federal Speedy Trial Act of 1974, which laid down specific procedural requirements. In the landmark case of Barker v. Wingo, the U.S. Supreme Court, through Justice Powell, articulated the core principles of this right. The Court observed that the right to a speedy trial is more abstract and less quantifiable than other constitutional guarantees, and that no fixed duration could define a denial of this right. Instead, it must be evaluated on a balancing test, considering factors such as the length and reasons for delay, the accused’s assertion or waiver of the right, and any prejudice suffered by the defendant.

Importantly, the burden of ensuring a speedy trial lies primarily with the courts and prosecution, rather than the accused. In Barker’s case, although the delay was extraordinary, the minimal prejudice suffered by the petitioner and his lack of urgency in demanding trial led the Court to conclude that his right had not been violated. This case became a foundational reference for understanding the flexible and contextual nature of the right to a speedy trial in comparative constitutional jurisprudence.

Thus, from the Fatwa Namgiri of medieval India to the balancing principles of Barker v. Wingo in the United States, the evolution of the speedy trial doctrine reflects a universal recognition: that justice must not only be fair, but must also be timely, and that delayed justice is no justice at all.

The Making of Speedy Trial in India: A Constitutional and Judicial Legacy

The right to a speedy trial, though not textually embedded in the original Constitution of India, has emerged as one of its most significant judicial creations—firmly rooted in the broader constitutional philosophy that justice delayed is justice denied. Over the years, this right has been chiselled into shape by the judiciary, through a series of landmark judgments that collectively illuminate how Indian jurisprudence evolved from rigid proceduralism to substantive justice.

The journey began with the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) case—a constitutional watershed. In this momentous verdict, the Supreme Court laid down a transformative principle: that any procedure curtailing personal liberty must be “just, fair, and reasonable.” This expansive interpretation of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, opened the door for recognising a host of procedural rights—including the right to a speedy trial—as intrinsic to the very fabric of fundamental rights.

Shortly thereafter, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the right to a speedy trial was explicitly acknowledged for the first time. The Court was confronted with the disturbing reality of undertrial prisoners languishing in Bihar jails for periods exceeding the maximum punishment for their alleged offences. In a poignant and path-breaking judgment, Justice P.N. Bhagwati proclaimed that the right to a speedy trial is not merely desirable but an “essential ingredient of the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21.”

Building on this foundation, the Court in Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) underlined the institutional responsibility of the State to ensure the timely conduct of trials. Any undue or unjustified delay, the Court warned, would render the entire prosecution constitutionally suspect, thereby violating the accused’s fundamental rights.

The scope of this right was further broadened in Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992). In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right to a speedy trial extends across every phase of the criminal process—from investigation, charge-sheeting, and trial, to appeals and retrials. Crucially, the Court laid down a set of guiding factors to assess delay, including the nature of the offence, the conduct of the parties, prejudice to the accused, and systemic bottlenecks.

However, when the attempt was made to prescribe fixed timeframes for the completion of trials in Common Cause cases, the Supreme Court reversed course in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002). The Court held that justice cannot be confined within rigid deadlines and that each case must be judged on its own merits using a balancing approach, mindful of fairness, reasonableness, and the peculiarities of each circumstance.

Through this gradual evolution—from constitutional interpretation to proactive judicial enforcement—the right to a speedy trial has matured into a cornerstone of Indian criminal justice. Today, it serves not just as a procedural safeguard, but as a powerful weapon against systemic inertia, prolonged pre-trial incarceration, and the criminalisation of poverty, especially for undertrial prisoners—who remain the most vulnerable segment caught in the slow gears of justice.

B. Legislative Framework in India for Speedy Trial (Old and New Criminal Laws)

I. Prompt Investigation:
Under Section 157(1) of the Cr.P.C., every officer in charge of a police station is required to proceed to the spot and investigate the facts and circumstances of the case without unnecessary delay. This provision ensures immediate action and prevents delay in the initial stage of criminal proceedings. In the new law, Section 175(1) of the BNSS, 2023, retains this obligation with similar wording, thereby upholding the commitment to swift investigation.

II. Detention During Investigation (Time Limits):
Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. imposes limits on the duration of custody that a Magistrate may authorize: 90 days for offences punishable with death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than 10 years, and 60 days for other offences. After this period, the accused is entitled to bail. This safeguard is maintained in Section 187(2) of the BNSS, 2023, with identical provisions to prevent indefinite detention of undertrial prisoners and promote early bail where investigation is delayed.

III. Timely Completion of Investigation:
Section 173(1) of the Cr.P.C. states that every investigation shall be completed without unnecessary delay. This fundamental provision is retained in Section 193(1) of the BNSS. Both laws aim to avoid protracted investigations and encourage timely submission of the police report.

IV. Time-Bound Investigation in Child Rape Cases:
To protect child victims, Section 173(1A) of the Cr.P.C. mandates that investigation in rape cases involving children be completed within three months. Section 193(2) of the BNSS replicates this requirement, reaffirming the need for fast-track handling of sensitive cases involving minors.

V. Supply of Documents to the Accused:
Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. mandates that the Magistrate must provide copies of essential documents—such as the police report, FIR, witness statements, confessions, etc.—to the accused free of cost. This provision ensures fair trial and transparency. The same duty is reiterated in Section 230 of the BNSS.

VI. Summary Trials for Minor Offences:
Chapter XXI (Sections 260–265) of the Cr.P.C. contains provisions for summary trials, which are quick procedures for dealing with petty offences. These provisions are carried forward in Chapter XXIII (Sections 280–286) of the BNSS, allowing swift disposal of cases where a full trial is unnecessary.

VII. Plea Bargaining Mechanism:
Introduced in Cr.P.C. under Chapter XXIA (Sections 265-A to 265-L), plea bargaining allows for voluntary negotiation between the accused and prosecution in cases where the punishment is less than seven years. It excludes serious offences and those affecting women, children, or socio-economic interests. The BNSS includes similar provisions under Chapter XXIV (Sections 289–303), encouraging resolution without full trial, reducing judicial backlog.

VIII. Day-to-Day Trial and Fast Disposal of Rape Cases:
Section 309(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides that inquiries and trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, cases under Sections 376 and related provisions of the IPC should be completed within two months from the filing of the chargesheet. This provision is preserved under Section 346(1) of the BNSS, showing continued emphasis on speedy trials, particularly in cases involving sexual offences.

IX. Limitation on Taking Cognizance:
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. places a bar on courts from taking cognizance of offences after a specified time: six months (if offence is punishable with fine only), one year (for offences punishable with imprisonment up to one year), and three years (for offences with imprisonment between one to three years). Section 522 of the BNSS carries forward these timelines to prevent delay and stale prosecutions.

C. Reasons Behind Delay in Trial

The core reason why the demand for a speedy trial arose is quite straightforward: excessive delays in the disposal of criminal cases. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized that delays often serve as a tactical weapon—especially for the defense. Over time, witnesses may become unavailable, and even when available, their memories may fade, weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that this increasing burden on the prosecution can turn what was initially a manageable case into a significantly difficult one.

However, the Court also clarified that not all delays are caused by the accused. Sometimes, the prosecution itself is responsible—due to negligence, indifference, or even deliberate inaction. In certain cases, when the evidence is weak and conviction seems unlikely, the prosecuting agencies intentionally prolong the trial to keep the accused in custody as a form of harassment. This is commonly seen in complex conspiracy cases. The accused, too, may suffer prejudice as time passes, with their defence witnesses becoming unavailable or losing memory, just like prosecution witnesses.

Several key factors contribute to such delays, which may be summarized as follows:

I. Non-availability of defence counsel on the scheduled date of trial.
II. Absence of the accused during court proceedings.
III. Delay in serving summons or executing warrants on accused persons or witnesses.
IV. Failure to produce undertrial prisoners in court by the prison authorities.
V. Trial judges proceeding on leave despite the case being listed.
VI. Defence lawyers refusing to appear or frequently seeking adjournments.

D. International Instruments and the Right to Speedy Trial: A Global Human Rights Perspective

The right to a speedy trial has garnered global recognition as a core component of human rights jurisprudence, particularly under the broader umbrella of the right to personal liberty and due process of law. The principle stems from the understanding that undue delays in criminal trials can violate multiple human rights, including the right to liberty, the right to be presumed innocent, and the right to a fair hearing. As a result, various international legal instruments have explicitly or implicitly recognized speedy trial as a fundamental human right—essential to protect individuals from arbitrary detention, mental anguish, and miscarriage of justice .

1. European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), 1950

The European Convention on Human Rights, established under the Council of Europe, was among the earliest international instruments to formally codify the right to a speedy trial.

• Article 5(3) states:
  “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial.”
  This provision safeguards against prolonged pre-trial detention, ensuring that individuals are not arbitrarily held without judicial scrutiny.
• Article 5(4) further provides:
  “Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court...”
  This offers a remedy for detainees to challenge the legality of their continued detention before a competent court.
• Article 6(1) of the ECHR guarantees the broader right to a fair trial and explicitly includes the concept of timely justice:
  “Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
  The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has elaborated this principle in many judgments, including Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland (1983), where delay in proceedings was held to violate Article 6(1).

2. American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), 1969

Also known as the Pact of San José, Costa Rica, the American Convention firmly embeds the right to a speedy trial within its provisions, particularly in its focus on protection against unlawful detention and delays in justice.

• Article 7(4):
  “Anyone who is detained shall be informed of the reasons for his detention and shall be promptly notified of the charge or charges against him.”
• Article 7(5):
  “Any person detained shall be brought promptly before a judge...and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to be released without prejudice to the continuation of the proceedings.”
  This affirms that pre-trial liberty is the rule, not the exception, and that detentions must be justified and limited in duration.
• Article 7(6):
  Grants the right to judicial review of detention, requiring courts to promptly assess its legality and order release if found unlawful.
• Article 8(2):
  “Every person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be presumed innocent so long as his guilt has not been proven...and to be heard, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal previously established by law.”

This framework shows that the Inter-American human rights system places great emphasis on procedural fairness and timely adjudication, echoing similar concerns as in European human rights jurisprudence.

3. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966

The ICCPR, adopted by the United Nations and binding on a large number of countries including India, recognizes the right to speedy trial under Article 9 and Article 14.

• Article 9(3):
  “Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge...and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.”
• Article 14(3)(c):
  “In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled...to be tried without undue delay.”

The Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the ICCPR, has repeatedly emphasized that speedy trial is essential to prevent pre-trial detention from becoming a form of punishment and to preserve the right to a fair trial.

4. Legal Significance and Global Consensus

The recognition of speedy trial in these international treaties demonstrates a universal legal consensus on its importance. It is not merely a procedural guarantee but an essential safeguard against:

• Arbitrary or prolonged detention,
• Psychological trauma to the accused,
• Loss of evidence and witnesses due to delay,
• Miscarriage of justice due to fading memories or disappearance of witnesses.

Moreover, international courts and monitoring bodies have consistently maintained that delays must be objectively justified, and failure to do so can result in violation of human rights obligations.

The right to a speedy trial is now firmly entrenched in international human rights law. It is seen as a vital part of ensuring due process, personal liberty, and fair trial standards. The Indian legal system, influenced by these global standards, has gradually evolved to recognize and enforce this right—particularly through judicial activism under Article 21 of the Constitution. These international instruments not only provide benchmarks for domestic legal systems but also serve as a reminder that timely justice is a global legal and moral imperative. 

E. Speedy Trial as a Fundamental Right in India: Judicial Recognition and Evolution

The recognition of the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental right in India is one of the most impactful judicial developments in the realm of criminal justice and human rights protection. Though not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution, the Supreme Court of India has, through creative interpretation, declared it to be an essential part of Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.

 Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979): A Turning Point

The foundation of this recognition was laid in the landmark case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar [(1979) AIR 1369]. The case exposed the dark reality of India’s criminal justice system: thousands of undertrial prisoners were languishing in jail for years without being formally charged or tried—many for petty offences carrying short sentences, had they been convicted.

Justice P.N. Bhagwati, delivering the judgment on behalf of himself and Justice R.S. Koshal, emphasized that:

“Even under our Constitution, though speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as a fundamental right, it is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21.”

Referring to the earlier precedent in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), where the Court held that “procedure established by law” under Article 21 must be reasonable, fair and just, Justice Bhagwati extended this logic by asserting that no procedure which fails to ensure a speedy trial can ever be considered fair, just or reasonable.

Thus, the absence of a time-bound trial process was deemed not just a procedural lapse, but a violation of a fundamental constitutional guarantee.

 Why Speedy Trial is Integral to Article 21

The Court reasoned that:

• When a person is arrested and detained without trial, his personal liberty is curtailed, even before being proven guilty.
• The prolonged wait for justice, especially in overcrowded jails under miserable conditions, amounts to punishment without conviction—which violates both natural justice and constitutional morality.
• Therefore, the “procedure” under Article 21 that allows deprivation of liberty must inherently include a reasonably quick trial.

Justice Bhagwati made a powerful observation:

“No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as ‘reasonable, fair or just’.”

 

 Implications of the Judgment

1. Speedy Trial Became Enforceable:
   After this judgment, the right to a speedy trial became judicially enforceable under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution, allowing any individual to approach the Supreme Court or High Courts directly if this right was violated.
2. Burden on State Machinery:
   The Court held the State accountable for delays, whether they were due to lack of infrastructure, shortage of judges, or prosecution’s negligence. Delay was not to be tolerated as part of the system anymore.
3. Undertrial Reforms:
   The case led to the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners across the country, bringing focus to custodial injustice, judicial pendency, and the need for judicial reforms.
4. Welfare Jurisprudence:
   This case is also seen as part of the broader movement in Indian constitutional law towards “social action litigation” or PIL, where the courts acted to protect the rights of marginalized and voiceless sections of society.

Comparison with Global Standards

What makes the Hussainara Khatoon decision remarkable is that India’s judiciary, without any explicit constitutional text, created a right that aligns with international human rights standards—such as Article 14(3)(c) of the ICCPR, which mandates that every person should be tried without undue delay.

The case of Hussainara Khatoon stands as a milestone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence. It demonstrates how the Supreme Court used its interpretative power to bring life to Article 21, expanding its meaning far beyond the narrow confines of textual interpretation. Today, the right to a speedy trial is not just a statutory goal but a living constitutional guarantee, ensuring that justice is not only done, but done promptly, fairly, and humanely.

F. Remedy vis-à-vis Impact of the Right to Speedy Trial & Rights of Undertrial Prisoners

The Right to Speedy Trial is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law." This right is especially crucial for undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty. They should not be made to suffer the hardship of prolonged incarceration while waiting for their trial, often for years, due to systemic delays.

In the landmark case of Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986) 3 SCC 632, the Supreme Court clearly held that if a person is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before a court for an unreasonable period, it amounts to a violation of the fundamental right to a speedy trial. The court emphasized that unless the delay is due to an interim order from a higher court or is caused by the accused, it is a breach of constitutional rights. The remedy for this violation could be the quashing of the prosecution itself. The judgment also directed special protection for women and children in jails, along with the regular review of undertrial prisoners’ cases.

This principle was also powerfully articulated in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), where the Court ordered the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been in jail for longer periods than the maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged crimes. The judgment marked a turning point in the evolution of prisoner rights in India.

According to the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and its publications such as “Rights of Prisoners” and the Model Prison Manual, 2016, undertrial prisoners are entitled to the following core rights:

1. Right to Speedy Trial (Article 21)

Backed by the Constitution and reaffirmed in cases like Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994), this right ensures that an accused is not left to suffer endlessly in custody without trial. Delays without valid justification are illegal, and courts are empowered to release or compensate such prisoners.

2. Right to Legal Aid (Article 39A)

Under Article 39A and Section 12 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, free legal aid must be provided to all undertrials, especially those from marginalized communities. Courts in Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981) and Suk Das v. Arunachal Pradesh (1986) reiterated that failure to provide legal aid at the state’s expense violates Article 21.

3. Right Against Arbitrary Detention (Article 22 & CrPC Sections 56–57)

The Constitution mandates that a person must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest (Article 22(2)), and must be informed of the reason for arrest and the right to bail. Any violation of this procedure is unconstitutional.

4. Right to Bail under CrPC Section 436A

This provision mandates that if an undertrial has undergone detention for more than half of the maximum punishment for the offence, he shall be entitled to bail. In Bhim Singh v. Union of India (2015), the Supreme Court directed the release of such undertrials languishing unnecessarily in prisons.

5. Right to Reasonable Conditions in Prison

The Prisons Act, 1894, Model Jail Manual, and NHRC guidelines provide that undertrials must be:

• Kept separately from convicts.
• Provided with adequate food, medical facilities, sanitation, and the right to communicate with their families and lawyers.
  This was enforced through Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978), where the court held that prisoners retain all fundamental rights except those restricted by the fact of incarceration.

6. Right to Protection from Custodial Violence

Undertrials are often victims of torture or inhumane treatment. The Supreme Court in DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997) laid down specific guidelines for arrest and detention, including mandatory medical examinations and the right to have someone informed about the arrest.

7. Right to Review and Release

Under NALSA and DLSA directives, Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) have been set up across the country to periodically assess cases and recommend release in appropriate cases. These committees help ensure that prisons do not become warehouses of forgotten persons.

Remedy and Institutional Role

When the right to a speedy trial is violated, courts have:

• Quashed proceedings (as in Common Cause v. Union of India, 1996).
• Awarded compensation (as in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, 1983).
• Ordered systemic reforms (as in Sheela Barse and Hussainara Khatoon cases).

Further, Legal Services Authorities—including NALSA, SLSA, and DLSAs—play a crucial role in ensuring these rights are not just theoretical but practically enforced. Legal aid clinics in jails, panel lawyers, and Lok Adalats help in speedy disposal of petty and bailable offences.

The Right to Speedy Trial and the rights of undertrial prisoners are deeply rooted in the constitutional promise of dignity, liberty, and justice. The courts, legislature, and institutions like NHRC and Legal Services Authorities together form a framework to protect these rights. Yet, in reality, implementation remains a challenge due to judicial delays, lack of awareness, and poor prison infrastructure. Therefore, continuous legal reforms, active judicial monitoring, and public accountability are essential to uphold the rights of undertrial prisoners and ensure that justice is not denied by delay.

G. Judicial Response to the Right to Speedy Trial

The Indian judiciary has played a crucial role in interpreting and strengthening the Right to Speedy Trial, which is implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is not only a constitutional mandate but also an essential element of criminal justice and human rights jurisprudence. The judiciary has consistently held that denial of a speedy trial amounts to denial of justice and violates the dignity of undertrial prisoners, who are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

1. Scope and Constitutional Basis

In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, the Supreme Court held that it is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure the dispensation of speedy justice, particularly in the criminal justice system. The Court firmly stated that paucity of funds, infrastructure, or staff cannot be valid justifications for violating a citizen’s right to justice. This right flows not only from Article 21 but also from Articles 14 and 19, as well as from the Preamble and the Directive Principles of State Policy, making it a comprehensive constitutional guarantee.

2. Stages Where the Right Applies

A significant clarification came in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, where the Apex Court laid down that the Right to Speedy Trial applies to all stages of a criminal proceeding—from the stage of investigation, through inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and even retrial.

The Court further identified the impact of delay on an accused, outlining three major concerns:

1. Prolonged pre-trial detention affects liberty and causes undue suffering.
2. Mental trauma, financial burden, and disruption of life due to the uncertainty and anxiety of prolonged proceedings.
3. Impairment of defense due to the loss of evidence or disappearance of witnesses, which may render a fair trial impossible.

3. Evolution of "Reasonable Delay" Jurisprudence

To assess whether a delay is unreasonable and unconstitutional, the Court in P. Ramachandra Rao formulated four key factors:

• Length of delay.
• Justification for delay.
• Assertion by the accused of their right.
• Prejudice caused to the accused.

This mirrors the principle laid down in the U.S. Supreme Court case Barker v. Wingo (1972), thus incorporating international standards into Indian jurisprudence.

4. Misuse and Balancing of the Right

The Court also warned against the misuse of the right by habitual offenders and hardened criminals. In State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah (1981), the Court held that if the accused himself is responsible for the delay, he cannot seek the protection of Article 21. The Court must consider factors such as:

• Was the delay due to court workload or systemic failure?
• Did the delay prejudice the accused’s ability to defend?
• Was the delay intentional or unavoidable?

If prejudice is proved, the conviction may be quashed. But where no prejudice is shown, and the accused contributed to the delay, the proceedings will not be terminated merely due to time lapse.

5. Specific Guidelines in Past Cases and Later Overruling

In Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar (1998 & 1999), the Supreme Court provided fixed timelines:

• For offences punishable with up to 7 years’ imprisonment: Prosecution evidence must conclude within 2 years.
• For offences punishable with more than 7 years: Evidence must conclude within 3 years, extendable only in exceptional circumstances.

However, these timelines were later overruled in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, where the Court held that prescribing rigid time limits for concluding trials is neither advisable, feasible, nor judicially permissible. Such timeframes can only act as guiding benchmarks or reminders to apply judicial mind, not as statutory bars.

6. Use of Procedural Powers under CrPC & BNSS, 2023

To actualize the right to a speedy trial, the Court in P. Ramachandra Rao encouraged trial courts to actively use procedural provisions:

Provision	Code	Purpose
Section 309 CrPC / BNSS Section 346	Adjournments	Courts should avoid unnecessary adjournments and must record reasons for delays in writing.
Section 311 CrPC / BNSS Section 359	Summoning witnesses	Courts can summon or recall witnesses to prevent delay and ensure complete justice.
Section 258 CrPC / BNSS Section 293	Stoppage of proceedings	Magistrate may stop proceedings in warrant cases not instituted on police reports, if delay is unjustifiable.
Section 482 CrPC / BNSS Section 484	Inherent powers of High Court	High Courts can quash proceedings or pass orders to prevent abuse of process or secure justice.
Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution	Constitutional powers of High Courts	Used for writs or superintendence over subordinate courts to prevent delay and protect rights.

Thus, the role of the trial judge is central. A watchful and efficient judge, equipped with procedural powers and a commitment to justice, is the best guardian of the right to speedy trial.

7. Other Significant Cases

• Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar (2006): The Court emphasized that while speedy justice is essential, it should not override the requirement for fair investigation. Delay cannot be a shield when there is gross miscarriage of justice by the investigating agency.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (1996): Earlier prescribed outer time limits for different categories of offences; later overruled by P. Ramachandra Rao.

The Supreme Court has evolved a balanced approach to the right to a speedy trial. It recognizes both the need to protect the liberty of the accused and the integrity of the criminal justice process. While early judgments attempted to set fixed timelines to speed up justice, later decisions like P. Ramachandra Rao emphasize judicial discretion, fairness, and reasonableness over rigid formulas. Courts must now assess each case on its facts, using available powers under CrPC or BNSS, and uphold the spirit of Article 21—ensuring that the wheels of justice move swiftly, but not blindly.

Ground Reality: The Human Cost of Delay and the Crisis of Undertrial Justice in India

According to the NCRB Prison Statistics India 2022, undertrial prisoners make up 77.1% of India’s total prison population—among the highest in the democratic world. This means that 3 out of every 4 people in Indian jails are not yet convicted, but are still deprived of liberty—some for years, others for decades. This mass pre-trial incarceration disproportionately affects the poor, Dalits, minorities, and other marginalized groups.

The NHRC’s Model Prison Manual (2016) and multiple NHRC reports have documented that undertrial prisoners often face:

• Lack of legal awareness or representation,
• Torture and custodial violence,
• Prolonged incarceration even for minor bailable offences,
• Severe mental health consequences and loss of dignity,
• Separation from families and loss of livelihood,
• Deaths in custody due to neglect or natural decay of the human will in confinement.

Worse still, India’s prisons are fast becoming death chambers for the marginalised. The NHRC recorded 2,130 custodial deaths in 2022–23, a staggering average of 6 deaths every day in judicial custody alone.

This delay in justice not only violates Article 21 of the Constitution, but also cripples democracy. As per Ambedkar’s vision, democracy is not just about voting—it is about "constitutional morality, fraternity, and the dignity of the individual." Keeping people in jails without trial—without conviction—is an assault on that dignity.

A Real Case: When Justice Comes Too Late to Matter

🕯️ “There is no meaning in justice if it comes after death.”

A landmark case that exposed this systemic cruelty was the case of S. Jaiswal, a man arrested in Uttar Pradesh in 2001 on charges of robbery and murder. Jaiswal remained in pre-trial detention for over 17 years without a single conviction. He died in prison in 2019 at the age of 65—still legally innocent.

When the Supreme Court reviewed a batch of cases relating to excessive detention in 2020, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud observed:

“There is a systemic pattern of prisoners spending more time in jail than the sentence they would receive if found guilty.”

In another case, Ramdass v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court held that keeping a person in pre-trial custody beyond a reasonable time violates Article 21, and ordered his immediate release after 14 years of undertrial detention.

Systemic Consequences: Justice Delayed is Democracy Denied

The India Justice Report (2023) concluded that India’s criminal courts have a clearance rate of less than 40% in Sessions cases, and the average time taken for case disposal in some states is over 5 years. This backlogs the judiciary and makes bail the exception, not the norm.

The denial of a speedy trial:

• Converts the presumption of innocence into punishment.
• Turns prisons into holding tanks for the forgotten poor.
• Erodes faith in the judiciary and widens the gap between constitutional promise and ground reality.
• Weakens public trust in democracy, as institutions appear indifferent to suffering.

A democracy that imprisons people for a lifetime without proving their guilt cannot call itself a just society. A right delayed is a right denied, but liberty delayed is not just denial—it is betrayal. Without urgent systemic reform, India risks perpetuating a cycle where injustice is legalized and the Constitution is reduced to an ideal, not a reality.

Undertrial ≠ Criminal: Yet the System Punishes Poverty Before Guilt

Most undertrial prisoners are not hardcore criminals—they are:

• Poor, often Dalit, Adivasi, Muslim, or from backward castes,
• Illiterate, unaware of bail provisions or legal rights,
• Accused of petty or bailable offences like theft, scuffles, or even mistaken identity,
• Abandoned by the justice system, sometimes for decades.

A majority languish in overcrowded jails, where health care is minimal, mental health services are absent, and abuse is rampant. For many, prison becomes a life sentence without trial.

 When Bail is Denied, Death Often Arrives First

 The Case of Mohammad Anis (Tihar Jail, 2021)

Arrested for alleged theft, Mohammad Anis, a daily-wage earner from Seelampur, died inside Tihar Jail. His trial hadn’t even started. Postmortem revealed signs of torture and internal injuries. The jail called it a "natural death." His family still awaits justice.

Cases like Anis’s repeat across India—Nameless, voiceless, and forgotten.

Constitutional Ideals, Crushed Behind Bars

While the Indian Constitution guarantees:

• Article 21: Right to life and dignity,
• Article 22: Protection from arbitrary arrest,
• Presumption of innocence in every criminal case,

These rights do not enter the prison gates. In Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons (2016), the Supreme Court acknowledged:

“Prisons are the most neglected sector in criminal justice… Prisoners are treated as sub-human and invisible.”

The implementation of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)—which laid down safeguards to prevent custodial torture—remains weak or ignored.

PVCHR’s Stand: This is Not Delay—This is Injustice by Design

At PVCHR, we believe these are not "accidental oversights" but a systemic failure rooted in:

• Discrimination based on class, caste, and religion,
• A broken bail system that prioritizes form over fairness,
• Lack of accountability mechanisms for deaths in custody,
• An institutional culture that sees the poor not as rights-holders but as criminals by default.

 

 

 

Summary Table: Where Democracy Breaks Down

Rank	State	Undertrial Prisoners (2022)	Pending Cases (Sessions & Lower Courts)	Custodial Deaths (2022–23, NHRC)
1	Uttar Pradesh	92,500+	Over 40 lakh cases	56
2	Bihar	46,000+	Over 20 lakh cases	34
3	Maharashtra	38,000+	Over 34 lakh cases	42
4	Madhya Pradesh	35,500+	Over 23 lakh cases	38
5	West Bengal	34,000+	Over 21 lakh cases	31

 

Indicator	National Average (2022–23)	Alarming States
% of Undertrial Prisoners	77.1%	UP, Bihar, Maharashtra, MP
Custodial Deaths (Judicial)	2,130+	UP (56), Maharashtra (42), Bihar (34)
Prison Overcrowding Rate	130% avg (18 states >150%)	Bihar, MP, UP, Chhattisgarh
Avg. Criminal Trial Duration	2–7 years	UP, WB, Rajasthan

Sources: NCRB Prison Statistics 2022; NHRC Custodial Death Report 2023

 

Justice Cannot Be Posthumous

How many more must die in silence before we recognize that freedom is not a luxury, but a constitutional right?

How many Anises will vanish into prison corridors while the courts await "next hearing dates"?

India must stop treating liberty as a privilege for the rich and punishment as the norm for the poor.

Justice delayed may be denied. But justice denied before trial is not justice at all—it is tyranny.

 

Recommendations

To uphold constitutional guarantees and the UN standards on human rights, the following policy and structural reforms are urgently recommended:

Decriminalize Poverty, Reform Bail System

• Enforce the Supreme Court's Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2022) guidelines to ensure bail is the norm, especially in minor, bailable, and first-time offences.
• Implement presumptive bail policies for the indigent and marginalized.

Address Mental Health and Medical Neglect in Prisons

• Establish mental health units and suicide prevention cells in every prison.
• Ensure mandatory medical examination within 24 hours of admission and periodic health reporting to district judges.

Custodial Death Review Commission

• Create an independent state-level commission to investigate every custodial death within 30 days.
• Make NHRC autopsy and compliance reports publicly accessible under RTI norms.

Strengthen Undertrial Review Mechanism

• Make monthly meetings of Undertrial Review Committees (UTRCs) mandatory and digitally track compliance.
• Prioritize release of prisoners under Section 436A CrPC, juveniles, elderly, and those with mental illness.

National Dashboard on Prison Justice

• Develop a real-time dashboard with data on undertrials, pending bail hearings, and custodial deaths (linked to courts and prisons).
• Include caste, gender, age, and disability disaggregated data for policy equity.

Prisoner Legal Literacy and Human Rights Training

• Mandate rights-awareness modules in jails with trained para-legal educators.
• Train prison staff in human rights, anti-torture laws, and mental health sensitivity.

 Ratify the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT)

• India remains a signatory but has not ratified the UNCAT.
• Enact a comprehensive anti-torture legislation as recommended by the Law Commission and NHRC.

 

Conclusion: Liberty in Chains, Justice on Trial

The plight of undertrial prisoners in India is not just a statistical anomaly—it is a constitutional and human rights emergency. With over 77% of inmates languishing without conviction, and thousands dying in custody each year, the justice system stands on trial itself.

These are not just failures of procedure; they are failures of empathy, accountability, and constitutional morality. The persistent abuse of pre-trial incarceration disproportionately impacts the poor, Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims, and voiceless individuals—those most in need of protection are instead punished by systemic neglect.

As the Supreme Court itself noted in Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, the prison system has “become the graveyard of human dignity.”

Each custodial death, each year-long delay in bail, each ignored plea of the legally innocent undertrial is not only a denial of liberty, but a betrayal of democracy itself.

Justice, as envisioned in the Constitution, is not only about conviction or acquittal—it is about dignity, fairness, and fraternity. Until these principles reach the darkest corners of our prisons, the idea of “complete justice” will remain incomplete.

“Democracy must not end at the courtroom doors. It must walk into every cell, every corner, every silent cry from behind bars.”

This research, in the spirit of PVCHR’s mission, seeks not only to highlight systemic injustice but to demand structural dignity. Let this work serve as both a record of reality and a roadmap for reform—because a just society must not only speak of rights, but ensure them for all, especially those we no longer see.  

Tribute to PVCHR and Jan Mitra Nyas

This research is deeply informed and inspired by the sustained efforts of the People’s Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR) and its implementing organization, Jan Mitra Nyas (JMN). Both institutions have played a transformative role in defending the rights of undertrial prisoners, promoting access to justice, and combating custodial violence in India.

Founded on the principles of non-violence, dignity, and constitutional morality, PVCHR has consistently exposed the systemic injustices embedded in India’s criminal justice system—particularly the prolonged pre-trial incarceration of the poor and marginalized. Through its extensive fieldwork, documentation, and legal interventions, PVCHR has brought visibility to the suffering of those whose voices are rarely heard inside the courtroom or beyond the prison gates.

Jan Mitra Nyas, as the operational wing of PVCHR, works to implement rights-based development at the grassroots level. Its initiatives such as the creation of “Torture-Free Villages” and community-based legal awareness programs have demonstrated a holistic approach to justice—where law, dignity, and social inclusion are not abstract goals but lived realities.

This paper reflects the core values championed by PVCHR and JMN: that justice must be timely, inclusive, and accessible to all—especially the voiceless. Their ongoing work has not only influenced policy debates but has also empowered survivors, strengthened legal consciousness, and challenged impunity.

In a landscape where justice is often delayed and dignity routinely denied, the role of organizations like PVCHR and JMN is both urgent and indispensable. This acknowledgment stands in recognition of their enduring contribution to human rights advocacy and democratic accountability in India.

“Justice is not charity—it is a constitutional promise. And that promise must reach every cell, every prisoner, every forgotten citizen.”

Liberty Denied: The Crisis of Undertrial Justice in India by pvchr.india9214 on Scribd