Denial of right to speedy trial to an accused is a grave miscarriage of justice: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Nitin Aryan v. State of Chhattisgarh, despite the reminders put forth by High Court, Trial Magistrate did not conduct the trial on time. Therefore, the trial of the petitioner got delayed and the petitioner had to remain in jail for an exceeded time period (1 year and 6 months) i.e. more than the sentence awarded by the Trial Magistrate.

The State Law Ministry and Director General of Police (DGP) were asked by a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court, Justice Sanjay K Agrawal, that due to grave violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is supposed to be compensated by them. The reasonable amount finalised was ₹1.87 lac. with 6 percent interest though the court believed that money cannot compensate for loss of personal liberty.

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution which promises the Right to Life, does not expressly quote the Right to speedy trial as a constitutional right but it is imbibed in the Right to fair trial which pins down to it being a fundamental right. In the present case, since Article 21 was violated in a criminal case, compensation to the accused being mandatory was recognised and granted by the High Court.

One of the precedence based upon which the HC stated its decision to be justified was Rudul Shah v. State of Bihar (1983). In this case, due to the elongated detention period of the accused, the right to speedy trial was violated, and therefore it was said that the only resort is to compensate the accused as Article 21 of the Constitution is not adhered with.