Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Applies to All Accused, Says Supreme Court

SC Grants Bail to Arvind Dham, Reaffirms Speedy Trial as Fundamental Right

The Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 applies uniformly to every accused person, irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the alleged offence. The observation came while granting bail to Arvind Dham in a money laundering case, with the court cautioning that prolonged pre-trial detention without meaningful progress risks turning incarceration into punishment.

Article 21 Applies Across Offences

A bench comprising Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe held that the right to a speedy trial is not “eclipsed” by the gravity or category of the offence. While acknowledging that seriousness of allegations remains a relevant consideration in bail matters, the court stressed that statutory restrictions cannot justify indefinite pre-trial detention. Constitutional guarantees, it said, must operate uniformly, including in cases involving economic offences.

Bail After Prolonged Incarceration

Granting relief to Dham, the court noted that he had spent about 16 months in custody , with no realistic prospect of the trial commencing soon. The bench pointed to the large number of witnesses—around 210 —making early completion unlikely. It also observed that the evidence was largely documentary and already in the prosecution’s possession, reducing the risk of tampering. In these circumstances, continued incarceration was held to infringe the right to a speedy trial.

Context of Stringent Bail Laws

The order has drawn attention as it follows a recent ruling where another bench denied bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act . Both UAPA and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act impose strict bail thresholds. The court clarified, however, that even such restrictions cannot result in endless undertrial detention if the state fails to ensure a timely trial.

Broader Implications

The judgment reinforces the principle that statutory bail curbs must be balanced against constitutional safeguards. It signals that unreasonable delay can itself become a substantive ground for bail, preventing pre-trial detention from assuming a punitive character.

Important Facts for Exams

• Article 21 includes the right to a speedy trial

• UAPA Section 43D(5) and PMLA Section 45 impose strict bail conditions

• Courts can grant bail to protect fundamental rights where trials are unduly delayed

• Prolonged pre-trial detention may violate personal liberty