Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar
Supreme Court of India · 9 March 1979 · 2 judges · 1979 AIR 1369; 1979 SCR (3) 532; 1980 SCC (1) 98
Free legal services for an accused unable to afford a lawyer are implicit in Article 21, and the State cannot deny speedy trial by pleading lack of resources; under-trials held beyond the maximum sentence were ordered released.
Facts
The writ petition concerned under-trial prisoners held for long periods in jails in Bihar. At this resumed hearing, pursuant to directions given on 26 February 1979, the State filed affidavits with particulars of under-trial prisoners in its jails. The lists showed prisoners who had been in jail, without their trial having commenced, longer than the maximum term they could receive if convicted, others charged with bailable offences who remained in jail, presumably because no bail application was made or they could not furnish bail, and many who had spent more than half the maximum term in jail, some for over five or six years. The State's counter-affidavit gave no reasons for the delay in bringing them to trial.
Questions before the Court
- Is free legal service to an accused who cannot afford a lawyer part of the 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure required by Article 21?
- Can the continued detention of under-trial prisoners who have been in jail longer than the maximum sentence for their offences be justified?
- Can the State deny speedy trial on the ground of financial or administrative inability, and what can the Court direct to enforce it?
What the Court held
- Following Maneka Gandhi, the procedure under Article 21 must be reasonable, fair and just. Free legal services to an accused unable to engage a lawyer because of poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation are implicit in Article 21, and the State must provide a lawyer where the circumstances and needs of justice require, unless the accused objects.
- Under-trial prisoners who had already been in jail longer than the maximum sentence they could receive if convicted were ordered to be released forthwith, as their continued detention was illegal and violated Article 21.
- Under-trials charged with bailable offences, and those in jail for more than half the maximum term, were to be given a lawyer at State cost on the next remand dates to apply for bail, the latter group also to oppose remand.
- Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of the procedure guaranteed by Article 21. The State cannot avoid this obligation by pleading financial or administrative inability, and the Court may direct positive action such as setting up new courts and appointing additional judges.
- The State was directed, and the Patna High Court requested, to furnish data on pending cases and investigations, and the Court recommended a comprehensive legal service programme, citing Articles 14, 21 and 39A.
Why it matters
The Court read Article 39A with Article 21 to hold that free legal services for an indigent accused are a constitutional right, and that the State must provide a lawyer at its own cost. It also held that the right to speedy trial cannot be defeated by the State's lack of resources, and that the Court may issue directions requiring positive action to enforce it. It ordered release of under-trial prisoners held longer than the maximum sentence for their offences.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“This Article also emphasises that free legal service is an inalienable element of ’reasonable, fair and just’ procedure for without it a person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived of the opportunity for securing justice. The right to free legal services is, therefore, clearly an essential ingredient of ’reasonable, fair and just, procedure for a person accused of an offence and it must be held implicit in the guarantee of Article 21.”
“The State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inabiltiy. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It is also the constitutional obligation of this Court as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State”
“We fail to see how the continued detention of these under-trial prisoners mentioned in the list of Mrs. Hingorani can be justified when we find that they have already been in jai for a period longer than what they would have been sentenced to suffer, if convicted. They have in fact some jail term to their credit.”
“It is, therefore, absolutely essential that persons accused of offences should be speedily tried, so that in cases where bail, in proper exercise of discretion, is refused, the accused persons have not to remain in jail longer than is absolutely necessary.”
Provisions interpreted
Related judgments
- Follows Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)“It is now well settled, as a result of the decision of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India(1) that when Article 21 provides” (page 5)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna
- Case
- Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979
- Decided
- 9 March 1979
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N., Desai, D.A.
- Opinions
- The Order of the Court was delivered by Bhagwati, J.
Questions on this case
5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.