Right to Speedy Trial and its Application in Cases Involving Economic Offences
Economic offences include bank fraud, insider trading, bribery, money laundering,cybercrime, corporate fraud, etc., and are considered serious offences due totheir potential to not only cause large financial losses but also to impact theeconomy of the nation and erode public confidence in the government. Accordingto data released by the National Crime Records Bureau, the Indian Policeregistered over 193,000 economic offence cases in 2022. The said category ofoffence has not only increased by 11% compared to the previous year, but isalso considered the largest category of offences, accounting for 5.4% of allcriminal cases reported. [1]
Despitethe gravity of these offences, the time taken to adjudicate such cases isinordinately long, invariably leading to significant hardships faced byindividuals. While investigations of economic offences require intricateexamination of several financial transactions, multiple entities and extensiveamounts of data and documents, which contribute to the delays in trial byprosecution, slow judicial process and sluggish legal machinery add to theprotracted detention of the accused during trial. This tiresome process andcomplexity increase the challenges of securing bail while manoeuvring laws,including the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (“PMLA”) and thePrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PCA”).
Thatsaid, an alarming trend shows that the state increasingly uses the machinery oflaw enforcement agencies such as the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and theCentral Bureau of Investigation (CBI), along with tax authorities that targetinnocent individuals for reasons such as political vendetta. In many instances,merely being tangled in such proceedings itself becomes the punishment becausethe accused individuals are subjected to long-drawn-out court battles, loss ofreputation, asset seizures, psychological agony, fear of arrest, etc. In thisbackdrop, the right to speedy criminal trial becomes of utmost importance.
Foundations of the Right to Speedy Trial
Fundamentalrights provided under the Constitution of India are critical in protecting libertyand ensuring that justice is available to all individuals equally. Among them, Article21 of the Constitution stands out as a foundational fundamental right as itsecures two of the most important rights, i.e., the right to life and the rightto personal liberty.
InA.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras [2], the SupremeCourt of India adjudicated upon the validity of a detention order passed by thestate under the Preventive Detention Act of 1950. The Court, while examiningthe scope of Article 21, stated that ‘personal liberty does not mean onlyliberty of the person, but it means liberty or the rights attached to theperson, i.e., jus personarum.’ While the above case was decided atthe genesis of the Constitution, and it was too early to interpret its trueessence and meaning, it paved the way for establishing principles based onwhich the said right could be reflected in various facets of one’s life.
Subsequently,the interpretation of Article 21 evolved throughout its judicial history. The rightto life was interpreted to mean not just the right to breathe but also theright to exist with dignity, livelihood, good health, etc. Similarly, the rightto personal liberty was also interpreted to include the right to privacy [3]and travel abroad [4]. One such right which emanates from thejudicial precedents is the right to speedy trial.
Severalfactors lead to inordinate delays in the adjudication of criminal cases inIndia, such as the overburdened judiciary, frequent adjournments,administrative inefficiencies, protracted investigations, etc. As per theNational Crime Records Bureau’s report for 2022, out of 5,73,220 inmates, atotal of 4,34,302 inmates were undertrials [5], amounting to nearly75% of all prisoners in India.
Statutory Provisions
TheBharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) (formerly, the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973) is the codified law that guides the process of criminalproceedings. It would be relevant to look at the below statutory provisionsfrom the BNSS which directly or indirectly impact the duration of trials:
Statutory or default bail: Under Section 187of BNSS, an accused can be detained in custody for a maximum detention periodof 15 days on a whole or in parts within the initial 40 or 60 days, subject to seekingpermission from the appropriate Judicial Magistrate. However, the accused canbe detained in judicial custody only for a maximum period of 90 days (for seriousoffences punishable up to 10 years or more) and 60 days (for other offences), respectively,after which the accused is entitled to be released on bail. However, in severalcases, the accused fails to avail of this remedy due to the non-appointment ofa lawyer or the prosecutors filing a preliminary chargesheet with baselessallegations merely to extend the custody and file supplementary chargesheets ata later date, thereby abusing the process of law.
Power to postpone or adjourn proceedings: Section346 of BNSS provides for the trial to be conducted on a day-to-day basis after thechargesheet is filed. However, courts have the power to grant adjournmentsafter recording reasons. This provision legitimises every request foradjournment from either the prosecution or the accused, without much thoughtbeing given to whether the reasons for adjournment are reasonable or not.
Bail in case of non-bailable offences during trial: Under Section480(6) of BNSS, courts must release the accused on bail if the trial is notconcluded within 60 days of commencement, unless the court deems otherwise, forreasons recorded in writing. Recently, the Supreme Court in Subhelal aliasSushil Sahu v. The State of Chhattisgarh [6] held interalia (for various reasons analysed therein) that the above provision couldnot be considered mandatory and absolute. The Court further observed that whilethe right to speedy trial is Constitutional, it is not absolute and comes withreasonable restrictions.
The maximum period for which an undertrial prisoner can bedetained:Section 479 of BNSS provides that repeat undertrial offenders undergo a maximumdetention of one-half of the maximum punishment for the offence, whereas first-timeoffenders have the threshold of one-third of the maximum period ofimprisonment. The Supreme Court in In Re-Inhuman Conditions In 1382Prisons [7] has clarified that Section 479 would apply retrospectivelyto all undertrial cases across the country.
Historical Development of the Right to Speedy Trial
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [8] is one of thefirst cases that expanded the scope of Article 21 inter alia to include theright to fair and reasonable trial. This interpretation subsequently recognisedthe right of an individual to a speedy trial as part of Article 21.
InHussainara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar [9],based on a 1977 report published by the National Police Commission, it washighlighted that several undertrial prisoners were held in jails of Bihar evenafter the expiration of their detention period. Against theabove, several habeas corpus writs were filed describing that suchundertrial prisoners were held in detention either due to lack of knowledge,legal assistance or financial constraints. The Supreme Court, while recognisingand emphasising the importance of speedy trial as a fundamental right coveredunder Article 21 of the Constitution, stated that irrespective of the monetaryconditions of the undertrials in custody, the state must take steps to providefree legal services at its own cost to ensure justice is provided to all since noprocedure which deprives a person of his liberty can be regarded as ‘reasonable,fair and just’. The Court held that “no person should be deprived oftheir liberty for an unreasonable time while waiting for their trial” to becompleted. The said case highlighted the need for judicial reforms and the requirementfor prompt action to uphold the rights provided under Article 21.
Subsequentlyin Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [10], the Supreme Court,while dealing with the constitutional validity of various provisions under the Terroristsand Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (now repealed), primarilyrelating to provisions allowing extended detention of accused on trial, interalia examined the principle of speedy trial and labelled the same as anintegral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and libertyenshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution to ensure reasonable, just, andfair procedures. While upholding the statute's constitutional validity, theCourt aimed to strike a balance between the need to protect society and the protectionof the fundamental rights of the citizen, including their right to a fair,impartial, and speedy trial.
InP. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka [11], anaccused facing criminal charges under PCA was acquitted merely because the prosecutionfailed to commence trial even after a lapse of two years. A 7-judge bench ofthe Supreme Court set aside the order and overruled various other precedentswhich prescribed a limitation period on trials. The Court was of the view thatdoing so amounted to the Judiciary passing legislations, whereas it could onlyinterpret the law and while doing so remove lacunae, if any. But it could notdeclare a new law altogether. It further observed that while upholding theright of an accused to a speedy trial, legislating or setting time limits isthe exclusive power of Parliament and the judiciary cannot go beyond itsjurisdiction and prescribe judicially imposed limitations for the disposal ofcriminal cases.
Recent Developments in Cases Involving Economic Offences
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI [12]: A governmentofficer was arrested for allegedly taking bribes and was being tried under provisionsof the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and PCA. Despite the completion of the investigationand despite not being arrested before and after the chargesheet was filed, anon-bailable warrant (NBW) was issued for failing to appear in Court. While notdealing with the right to speedy trial directly, the Supreme Court consideredseveral precedents and provided guidelines for the state and courts to ensure thetimely disposal of cases, apart from recommending the legislature to enact aseparate law for bails. Emphasis was laid on the timelines set by the statute forregistering FIR, conducting investigation, inquiry and trial in order topromote speedy trial. While the above suggestion for enacting a separate lawfor bail was not considered by the Parliament, the observations of the SupremeCourt are time and again referred to and cited as a precedent to highlight theright to speedy trial.
Manish Sisodia v. Enforcement Directorate [13]: Certainprivate entities were provided liquor licenses in exchange for financial gains,against which a minister involved was accused of corruption and moneylaundering. The accused was arrested by the CBI and subsequently by the ED. Appealswere filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s orders in rejecting the bailapplications against both the authorities. The Supreme Court observed thatwhile the investigation required an examination of 493 witnesses and documentsrunning into 69,000 pages, the proceedings were being conducted at a ‘snail’space’, and the delay was not attributable to the accused. The Court grantedbail to the accused on account of long incarceration of more than 17 monthswithout commencement of trial, depriving the accused of his right to a speedytrial. It was evident that the prosecution, by detaining the accused beyond reasonabletime under the guise of a pending investigation, was attempting to tarnish thereputation of a ruling party. In fact, on similar grounds, several otherministers accused of the same offence, such as Arvind Kejriwal, K. Kavitha, etc.,were also granted bail.
V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, ED [14]: A ministerwas accused of being involved in a cash-for-jobs scam and was arrested under thePMLA. An Appeal was preferred against the rejection of the bail application filedbefore the Madras High Court. It was argued that all documents and electronicevidence were seized, and statements of witnesses were recorded. However, the accusedwas incarcerated for more than 14 months while charges were yet to be framed. TheSupreme Court, while considering the health and medical grounds, also observed adelay on the part of the ED in commencing the trial and granted bail to theaccused, thereby upholding the right to speedy trial as a constitutional rightunder Article 21. This case balances between the rights of an accused andadministrative procedures in criminal prosecution. It prioritises the right toget medical treatment over the requirement to remain in custody for a smoothinvestigation.
Conclusion
Presently,around 4,49,76,998 cases (both civil and criminal) are pending before the SubordinateCourts. About 37,45,200 of the total cases are pending for more than 10 years,out of which 36,62,253 are criminal cases.[15]
Theright to speedy trial, enshrined in Article 21, is an indispensable facet ofthe Indian legal system, ensuring justice is timely and effective. While thejudiciary has made significant strides in safeguarding this right, systemicreforms are needed to tackle delays and backlogs in trials. The Legislatureneeds to overhaul each step of the trial of serious offences, specifically withthe intention of avoiding delays. This will also help keep a check on thelackadaisical approach of the parties involved so that the undertrials do notsuffer at the hands of others.
Whiledeterrent punishments are necessary, they cannot come at the cost of breachingthe fundamental right to life and personal liberty of any person, including anundertrial prisoner. The above cases focus on procedural fairness andaccountability of investigative agencies while protecting individual rights, whichwill likely shape the future legal discourse on economic offences, pre-trialincarceration, and the timeliness of justice. They send a strong message thatsystemic inefficiencies in the prosecution cannot override the fundamentalrights of the accused.
References
[1] Crime inIndia 2022, dated 03 December 2023, published by National Crime Records Bureau,Ministry of Home Affairs.
[2] 1950 SCC228.
[3] KharakSingh v. State of UP 1962 SCC Online SC 10; and Justice K. S. Puttaswamy(Retd.) and Another v. Union Of India and Others 2019 1 SCC 1.
[4] SatwantSingh Sawhney v. Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi1967 SCC Online SC 21;and Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 1978 1 SCC 248.
[5] PrisonsStatistics India Report 2022, dated 01 December 2023, published by the NationalCrime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs.
[6] 2025 SCCOnline SC 347.
[7] Order dated23 August 2024 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 406 of 2013.
[8] 1978 1 SCC 248.
[9] 1980 1 SCC 98.
[10] 1994 SCC (CRI) 899.
[11] 2002 4 SCC 578.
[12] 2022 10 S.C.R. 351.
[13] 2024 SCC Online SC 1920.
[14] 2024 SCC Online SC 2054.
[15] National Judicial Data Grid, Total Pending Cases,NJDG, https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in (last visited 11 April 2025).