http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: HUSSAINARA KHATOON & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HOME SECRETARY, STATE OF BIHAR, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/05/1979

BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. BENCH: BHAGWATI, P.N. REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1979 AIR 1819            1979 SCR  (3)1276  1980 SCC  (1) 115

ACT:      Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 21-Necessity of Speedy trial of undertrial prisoners.

HEADNOTE:      Ordinarily when  a person  is accused  of more than one offence, the  sentences of imprisonment imposed are directed to  run   concurrently  but   assuming  the   sentences   of imprisonment be  consecutive, the  undertrial prisoners here have suffered incarceration for the maximum period for which they could  be sent  to  jail  on  conviction  for  multiple offences. There is absolutely no reason why the under trials be allowed  to continue  in jail  for a  moment longer since such continuance of detention would be violative not only of human dignity but also of their fundamental right under Art. 21 of the Constitution. [1277A-C]      [The  Court   directed  the   High  Court   to   submit information regarding  the location of Courts, the number of cases pending  in each of them and the reasons for the delay in  disposal  of  cases  to  enable  it  to  give  necessary direction for  setting up more Courts, appointing additional Judges and  providing more  facilities by  way of  staff and equipment so  as to  ensure fulfillment  of the  fundamental right of  the accused  to speedy  trial under Art. 21 of the Constitution.] ^

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 57 of 1978.      Mrs. K. Hingorani for the Petitioners.      U. P. Singh for the Respondent.      The Order of the Court was delivered by      BHAGWATI, J.-This Writ Petition has come up for further directions. Mr.  U. P.  Singh, on  behalf of  the  State  of Bihar, has  pointed out  that the  Order made  by us on 19th April, 1979  directing  release  of  Sukhan  Sah  and  Ganga Prasad, being  under-trial prisoners  detained in  Bhagalpur Central Jail  and mentioned  in the  list furnished  by Mrs. Hingorani on  16th April,  1979, is  not correct,  since  on further scrutiny  it is  found that  they do not fall within

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the category  of under-trial prisoners who have been in jail for a  period longer  than the  maximum term  for which they could have  been  sentenced,  if  convicted.  We  therefore, recall our  Order directing  release of Sukhan Sah and Ganga Prasad. Their  cases will be considered by us again when the Writ   Petition  is  taken  up  for  final  hearing  on  the reopening of the Court after the summer vacation. 1277      Mrs. Hingorani  has handed  over to us a list of under- trial prisoners who are accused of multiple offences and who have already  been in  jail for  the maximum  term for which they could be sentenced on conviction, even if the sentences awarded to  them were  consecutive and  not concurrent.  Now ordinarily when  a person  is accused  of more offences than one, the  sentences  of  imprisonment  imposed  on  him  are directed to  run concurrently,  but even  on the  assumption that the sentences of imprisonment may be consecutive, these undertrial  prisoners,   mentioned  in   the  list  of  Mrs. Hingorani,  have  already  suffered  incarceration  for  the maximum period  for which  they could have been sent to jail on conviction. There is absolutely no reason why they should be allowed  to continue  to remain  in  jail  for  a  moment longer, since such continuance of detention would be clearly violative not  only of  human  dignity  but  also  of  their fundamental right  under Article 21 of the Constitution. We, therefore,  direct   that  these  under-trial  prisoners  be released forthwith.      We have  also before us a list of under-trial prisoners furnished by  Mrs. Hingorani,  which  gives  the  names  and particulars of  those under-trial  prisoners who are accused of multiple  offences and who have been in jail for a period longer than the maximum for which they could be sentenced on conviction on  the basis  of the sentences being concurrent, though, if  the sentences of imprisonment imposed on them on conviction  were   directed  to   run  consecutively,  their detention as under-trial prisoners could not be said to have exceeded the  maximum term.  We do  not for  the time being, direct them to be released unconditionally but when they are produced before  the Magistrates  or the  Courts of Session, they may be released on bail on executing a personal bond of Rs.  50/-   only,  without   any  surety   and  without  any verification of financial solvency. We direct that a copy of this Order,  may be  sent through the High Court of Patna to the Magistrates  and Courts of Session before whom the cases of these  undertrial prisoners  are  pending,  so  that  the necessary orders  granting bail  may be  passed by  them  in favour of  these under-trial  prisoners at the earliest. The High  Court   may  obtain   a  compliance  report  from  the Magistrates and  Courts of Session and submit the same to us by the middle of June, 1979.      We pointed out in our earlier Judgment dated 9th March, 1979 that  speedy trial  is a  part of the fundamental right guaranteed under  Article 21  and in  order to  enforce this fundamental right,  it was  necessary to have particulars as to the location of the Courts of Magistrates 1278 and Courts  of Session  in the  State of Bihar together with the total number of cases pending in each of these courts as on 31st  December, 1978  giving year  wise break-up  of such pending cases  and also  explaining  why  it  has  not  been possible to  dispose of  such of  those cases  as have  been pending for  more then  six months.  We, therefore,  by  our order dated  9th March,  1979 called  for these  particulars from the High Court of Patna and pursuant to our directions, the High  Court has  sent these  particulars in  a  detailed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

chart and  also intimated  to  us  what  are  the  norms  of disposals  fixed  by  the  High  Court  for  each  Court  of Magistrate and Sessions Judge. But this information given to us by  the High  Court is not enough. We should also like to know from the High Court how many more Courts and Judges are necessary and  at which places, for ensuring the fundamental right of  speedy trial  to the  accused in the State, having regard to  the pending  file and the average inflow of cases and the norm of disposals fixed for each Court of Magistrate and Sessions  Judge by the High Court. The High Court should also inform  us what  further facilities by way of staff and equipment are  necessary in  the Courts  of Magistrates  and Courts of  Session, the  lack of  which is  responsible  for delays in  disposal of  criminal cases  and is hampering the realisation of  the fundamental  right of speedy trial. This additional information,  which of  course would  have to  be worked out on the basis of a proper and careful analysis and appraisal of  the existing  and anticipated filing of cases, should be  forwarded to this Court by the High Court by 30th June, 1979  in five  sets and  out of  these five  sets, one should be handed over to Mrs. Hingorani and the other to Mr. U. P.  Singh, on  behalf of the State of Bihar. If the State of  Bihar   wishes  to   contest  the   correctness  of  the information supplied  by the  High Court  or the validity of the proposal  made by the High Court, the State of Bihar may file an  affidavit in  reply on  or before  20th July, 1979. This Court  will then  decide, on  the basis of the material placed before  it, as to what directions are necessary to be given for  setting up  more  courts,  appointing  additional judges and  providing more  facilities by  way of  staff and equipment, so  as to  ensure fulfilment  of the  fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.      The Writ Petition will now come up for final hearing on 24th July, 1979. N.K.A. 1279