The Hindu : Verdict in Antulay case still holds field: SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Apr 22, 2002

Other States

Other States - Maharashtra

Verdict in Antulay case still holds field: SC

By T.Padmanabha Rao

NEW DELHI APRIL 21. A seven Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that "it is neither advisable, nor feasible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.''

Delivering the main judgement, R.C. Lahoti held that the direction (of a Constitution Bench of the court) in Antulay's case (1992) ''is correct and still holds the field.

The Bench which included S.P. Bharucha, and Syed Shah Mohammad Quadri, N. Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal and Arijit Pasayat said that "the time-limits or bars of limitation prescribed in the several directions made in earlier cases, namely, Common cause (1996) and Raj Deo Sharma (1996 and 1999) could not have been so prescribed or drawn and are not good law.''

D.S. Raju pronounced a separate but concurring verdict.

While underlining the right to `speedy trial' in criminal cases within the meaning of fundamental right to life and liberty in Article 21 of the Constitution, `the Antulay case' observed that — "it is neither advisable nor feasible to draw or prescribe an outer time limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.''

Some of the conclusions of the Bench are as follows:

The guidelines in Antulay's case adequately take care of right to speedy trial.

At the most the periods of time prescribed in `common cause' and `Raj Deo Sharma cases' can be taken by the courts seized of the trial or proceedings to act as reminders when they may be persuaded to apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before them and determine by taking into consideration of several relevant factors as pointed out in Antulay's case and decide whether the trial or proceedings have become so inordinately delayed as to be called oppressive and unwarranted. "Such time-limits cannot and will not by themselves be treated by any court as a bar to further continuance of the trial or proceedings and as mandatorily obliging the court to terminate the same and acquit or discharge the accused.''

The criminal courts should exercise their available powers, such as those under Sections 309 (adjournment of cases) 311 (summoning witnesses) and 258 (power to stop proceedings) of Code of criminal procedure to effectuate the right to speedy trial. A watchful and diligent trial judge can prove to be better protector of such right than any guidelines .

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Other States

Stories in this Section

Verdict in Antulay case still holds field: SC