Justice delayed is Justice denied

It is often complained – delay in trials – Why?

Many a time people say there is procrastination in trial, gradual corrosion of their social reputation, deprivation of respectable livelihood, in some case extreme suffering of emotional and mental stress and strain.

As you know There is a saying “JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED” as also “JUSTICE HURRIED IS JUSTICE BURIED”.

What is the reason for the delay ?
“Speedy trial” and “fair trial” to a person accused of a crime are integral part of Article 21. There is, however, qualitative difference between the right to speedy trial and the accused’s right of fair trial. Unlike the accused’s right of fair trial, deprivation of the right to speedy trial does not per se prejudice the accused in defending himself. The right to speedy trial is in its very nature relative. It depends upon diverse circumstances. Each case of delay in conclusion of a criminal trial has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of such case. Mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecution by itself may not justify the discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment. The factors concerning the accused’s right to speedy trial have to be weighed vis-à-vis the impact of the crime on society and the confidence of the people in judicial system. Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. The nature and gravity of crime, persons involved, social impact and societal needs must be weighed along with the right of the accused to speedy trial and if the balance tilts in favour of the former the long delay in conclusion of criminal trial should not operate against the continuation of prosecution and if the right of the accused in the facts and circumstances of the case and exigencies of situation tilts the balance in his favour, the prosecution may be brought to an end.

[For more details please refer : Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal And Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra.’] [Dated: March 15, 2013] [Supreme Court]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *