Author :Neya Dharshini S, SASTRA Deemed to be University
To the point
Hussainara Khatoon’s case focuses on the following aspects.
Legal aid
Article 21
Judicial activism
Functioning of the bail system
Responsibility of the Government
Rights of the accused/ prisoners according to BNSS
Development of Public Interest Litigation
This case gave a landmark judgment and has widened the scope of Article 21 and supported the speedy trial as the means of justice cannot be achieved without a speedy trial and the release of under-trial prisoners once the investigation or the purpose of arrest has been accomplished. This ensures that the right of free legal aid given under Article 39(A) of the Indian Constitution is being informed to the person detained or arrested. Detaining them for a period more than a necessary period is violating their fundamental rights. This case also emphasizes the utilization of legal aid and legal remedies available to citizens. The concept of PIL also had its strong foundation in this case. This case aims to help the poor people who have been detained wrongfully and could not access a legal remedy.
Abstract
In this case, several people were detained without being brought to the trial proceedings. Their bail petitions were also dismissed. They were not allowed to access the rights and remedies conferred to them by the Constitution and other legislations. The judgment was given in favour of the petitioners. The bench consisted of Justice N Bhagawati, Justice PN Desai, and Justice DA Desai. After hearing the contentions of both the petitioners and respondents, the bench insisted upon free legal aid and the release of the persons detained unlawfully. Let us look into the nuances that are pointed out by the court and the functioning of the criminal justice system in granting bail, especially to the poor & backward people.
Use of legal jargon
Facts of the case
Several poor and needy people were arrested and detained in Patna Central Jail, Muzaffarpur Central Jail, and Ranchi Central Jail. A police higher official, who went for an inspection in the prison, found that many prisoners were detained in the prison without being produced in the court, and even if they are produced, the court will adjourn to different dates. No trial has been commenced, and they are detained even after their detention period has ended. They have applied for bail, but all of their bail petitions were denied and dismissed. Many women, children, and other underrepresented classes of people are the ones who were detained wrongfully. The Bihar Government was advised to modify the rules regarding the release of under-trial prisoners once their arresting purpose is accomplished or the investigation is over, and to divide the people who have committed minor offences and serious offences. But the state failed to make the modification that led to excessive detention of under-trial prisoners. Poor people who are underrepresented in society were arrested for minor offences, and they were detained for more than 10 years. They could not afford an advocate to represent them, and their bail was denied. So, a Public Interest Litigation is filed for a speedy trial and release of under-trial prisoners.
Issues
Whether free legal aid a fundamental right?
Whether the under-trial prisoners entitled to free legal aid?
Whether Article 21 extends its scope to a speedy trial?
Whether justice can be achieved by inserting a speedy trial in the criminal justice system?
Contentions
The petitioner contended that the poor people who were arrested for minor offences were kept in detention without commencing the trial. They have been denied their bail petitions, and they are not aware of the available legal remedies. Therefore, the petitioner wants to release the under-trial prisoners.
On the other hand, the respondent contended that they have not detained those prisoners unlawfully since they get the order of judicial custody every time from the Magistrate. They argued that this detention happened because of the delay in receiving the expert opinion from the expert members. The respondents said that they had no malicious intention in detaining the poor people, and they merely followed the procedure to attain justice.
The Judgment
The court rejected the contentions of the respondents, saying that the delay of expert opinions was the reason for the detention of the under-trial prisoners. The court held that the state could have made any alternative remedy to deal with the same to ensure and administer justice. The state held that the under-trial prisoners whose names are listed in the petition should be released immediately. The court held that detaining the prisoners unreasonably for a very long period without conducting a trial proceeding will violate their right to life under Article 21 of our constitution, and they should be allowed to meet and interact with their advocate, and if there is no one, the court should appoint an advocate to represent them.
Article 21 deals with the right to life. Detention of prisoners in the jail and refusing to release them is violating their fundamental right under Article 21. If they are not allowed to live peacefully, their livelihood gets affected, and so does their family.
The court also held that the legal remedy and free legal aid are available to the prisoners in our constitution. Article 39A of our constitution says that the State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities. The prisoners should be informed about their legal remedies available to them. If they could not afford an advocate to represent them, the court can appoint an advocate as a policy of legal aid. The state, at its own expense, should appoint an advocate to represent the poor people, as it is the obligation of the state conferred by our constitution.
The court also held that, if any person is arrested for a bailable offence and has been in prison for more than the period required, he/she should be granted bail or they should be produced to the Magistrate in the next hearing. More than the rights given to them under Article 21 and Article 39A, they are also protected by human rights. Even though they are prisoners, they are protected under human rights, as India has signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Rights of the accused/ prisoners
The prisoners or accused persons have the same fundamental and constitutional rights as the normal citizens. They should not be deprived of their rights just because they are imprisoned, and they have the right to access legal aid. Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, enacted in 2023, lists the rights of the accused person and prisoners. They are,
Section 38 – This section says that the arrested person should be allowed to meet an advocate during the investigation process, but not throughout the investigation.
Section 46 – The arrested person or the accused person should not be subjected to restriction just to prevent their escape, more than the amount needed.
Section 47 – Police officers should inform the arrested person, the reason for such arrest. If it is a bailable offence, the police officer should inform that he/she is entitled to get bail.
Section 56 – The accused person / arrested person has the right to be healthy and safe, and the police officers have to ensure their health and safety.
Section 57 – The person arrested by the police officer should be produced before the Magistrate the appropriate jurisdiction of the appropriate jurisdiction or to the police officer in charge of a police station.
Section 77 – The police officer, by warrant, arrests a person and should show the substance in the warrant to the arrested person / accused person.
Section 78 – The person being arrested should be produced before the Magistrate without any delay and within 24 hours of arrest.
Conclusion
To conclude, the court, through this case, stresses the rights available to the arrested persons/accused persons given under Article 21 and Article 39A. prisoners should not be deprived of their rights, and they should be treated equally as they are entitled under Article 14, too. The investigation process should be completed in an appropriate time, and the people who have been arrested should be released without any delay if they need to be released. The police officers should not give any justification for unlawfully detaining under-trial prisoners. In the DK Basu case and in Arnith Kumar vs State of Bihar case, the court has given some guidelines and that should be followed to attain justice.
FAQs
What is the importance of this case?
This case is considered an important case as it was the first case filed as a PIL case after the introduction of the concept of PIL in the Indian Judicial System. This case laid the foundation for PIL cases, and the judgment of this case ensured that the aggrieved persons would get justice through PIL cases.
How many prisoners benefited?
Initially, 17 undertrial prisoners were granted bail. The impact was widespread in the end, approximately 40,000 undertrials across India were released because their detention exceeded legal limits.
