CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW -1
ASSIGNMENT ON CASE – HUSSIANARA KHATOON V.
HOME SECRETARY, BIHAR, AIR 1979 SC 1675

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

POONAM KUMARI SAMTA KUMARI

[ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR] B.A.LL.B[Hons]2nd semester

SLG, CUSB ENROLLMENT NO. CUSB2213125091

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to all those who have
contributed to the successful completion of this university assignment.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my professor POONAM KUMARI (Associate
professor) CUSB, SLG, whose guidance and expertise have been invaluable throughout this
assignment that is case review on HUSSIANARA KHATOON V. HOME SECRETARY,
BIHAR. Their insightful feedback and encouragement have helped shape my understanding
of the subject matter and have pushed me to strive for excellence.
I am also deeply indebted to my classmates and friends who have supported and inspired me
during this academic journey. Their constructive discussions and collaborative efforts have
fostered a stimulating learning environment, enabling me to expand my knowledge and
develop new perspectives.
Furthermore, I would like to acknowledge the university library staff for their assistance in
accessing relevant resources and materials, which have significantly enriched the quality of
my research.
Lastly, I am grateful to my family for their unwavering support and understanding. Their
constant encouragement and belief in my abilities have been instrumental in my academic
pursuits.
In conclusion, I extend my heartfelt appreciation to everyone who has contributed to the
completion of this assignment. Your guidance, support, and encouragement have been
instrumental in my growth as a student, and I am truly grateful for the opportunities provided.
TABLE OF CONTENT
 CASE DETAIL
Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979. Case: Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs Home Secretary,
State of Bihar, Patna. Supreme Court (India)

Case Writ Petition No. 57 of 1979

Number

Counsel For Appellant: K. Hingorani, Adv. and For Respondents: S.M.

Jha and P.P. Singh, Advs.

Judges A.D. Koshal, P. N. Bhagwati and R.S. Pathak, JJ.

Issue Constitution of India - Article 21

Citation AIR 1979 SC 1360, 1979 CriLJ 1036, (1980) 1 SCC 81, (1980)
1 SCC 91, [1979] 3 SCR 169, 1979 CriAppR 197 (SC), 1979
PatLJR 419

Judgement February 12, 1979

Date

Court Supreme Court (India)

 INTRODUCTION
The quote by William Gladstone, "Justice delayed is Justice denied," means that if justice is
not served in a timely manner, it loses its value. Before the Hussainara Khatoon case, people
were unaware of the terrible conditions faced by prisoners and the violation of their rights
and freedoms. Every individual is entitled to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This includes giving them a fair chance to
prove their innocence. However, the case of Hussainara Khatoon shed light on the lack of
access to free legal aid for the poorer sections of society and the outdated and unsatisfactory
bail system, making it impossible for the poor to fulfill their rights. It exposed a slow and
outdated legal system that hinders a person's access to basic freedoms and liberties. It also
emphasizes the need for citizens to be vigilant about social and legal issues, as stated in the
Latin phrase "Vigilantibus Non Dormientibus Jura Subveniun," which means "the law aids
those who are vigilant, not those who sleep."

The case Hussainara Khatoon & Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar was filed under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution as a writ petition of habeas corpus, which means the
right to have the body. Habeas Corpus ensures that any accused person has the right to a fair
trial and must be presented to a magistrate within 24 hours of their arrest. However, the case
revealed that the law doesn't always work effectively in the real world. It highlighted the
dysfunctional prison system and the outdated judicial system.

The right to a speedy and fair trial is granted to every human being, and the State should not
discriminate against individuals based on their caste, religion, gender, or place of birth.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty,
imposes a responsibility on the State to ensure that every accused person receives a quick
trial. In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, it was observed that the term "personal
liberty" encompasses various rights that constitute an individual's personal freedom.
Additionally, Article 39A of the Constitution provides the right to legal aid and justice for the
poor and destitute. In a country like India, where a significant portion of the population lacks
the means to fight lengthy legal battles and hire competent lawyers, this right becomes
essential. The judiciary in India often faces cases where the fundamental rights of people are
not just questioned, but severely violated. One such landmark case is Hussainara Khatoon v.
State of Bihar, which focused on the right to a speedy trial in India.
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 1979, a significant case called Hussainara Khatoon & Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar brought attention to the issue of undertrial prisoners in India. This case, also known
as an 'undertrial case,' focused on the accessibility of justice and highlighted important
aspects of Public Interest Litigation.

The story begins in 1977 when the National Police Commission launched a three-year
investigation into factors affecting the Indian Criminal Justice System. One of the issues
raised was the large number of unconvicted prisoners or individuals held under trial for
crimes that had not been proven. An article published by RF Rustomji in the Indian Express
drew attention to the appalling conditions of the Indian criminal system. Rustomji presented
several case studies of accused individuals whose under-trial period exceeded the maximum
punishment they would have faced if convicted.

In response to these findings, Adv. Kapila Hingorani, one of the first women lawyers to be
heard in the Supreme Court, filed a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of nineteen undertrial
prisoners. Hingorani relied on the information provided by Rustomji's articles. The first
petitioner in the case was Hussainara Khatoon, a refugee who had fled from Bangladesh in
1975. She had been arrested and held in 'protective custody' for four years, despite the Indian
government's directives to release refugees on bond if they were arrested under the
Foreigners Act.

A writ of habeas corpus is a legal mechanism to prevent unlawful incarceration by requiring

the custodian of a person to prove the legality of their custody. It can be accessed with the
help of an amicus curiae, a person appointed by the court to assist in a case. The underlying
principle is that someone unlawfully detained may not be able to assert their rights or seek
relief on their own. However, it is usually required to file a habeas corpus petition with a
Power of Attorney, an affidavit, or through a representative like a next friend or an amicus
curiae of the prisoner.

Interestingly, Kapila Hingorani did not attempt to contact any relatives of the prisoners
mentioned in Rustomji's article. Instead, she filed the habeas corpus petition herself,
emphasizing that she was doing so as a concerned citizen rather than as a lawyer specifically
hired by the prisoners.

In summary, the Hussainara Khatoon & Others (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar case
brought attention to the issue of undertrial prisoners in India. It started when Kapila
Hingorani filed a habeas corpus writ on behalf of several undertrial prisoners based on the
information provided by RF Rustomji's articles. The case highlighted the importance of
accessibility to justice and raised concerns about prolonged undertrial periods.
 FACT OF THE CASE
In this case, a petition called habeas corpus was filed in the Supreme Court of India under
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution. The petition aimed to release 17 prisoners who were
awaiting trial. The case shed light on the problems within the State's Criminal Justice system.
It was found that a large number of women and minors were imprisoned for minor crimes,
some of which would usually result in only a few months of incarceration. However, these
individuals had been waiting for justice for several years. In some cases, the crimes they were
accused of were not serious enough to warrant such a lengthy imprisonment. Some prisoners
didn't even know the reasons behind their arrests or how long they had been in jail.

The State of Bihar was instructed by the court to provide an amended record, categorizing the
undertrial prisoners based on minor crimes and serious non-bailable offenses. However, the
State government failed to take any action, which violated human rights and fundamental
values. This case was the first reported instance of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India,
and Kapila Hingorani, who filed the petition, was referred to as the "Mother of Public Interest
Litigation of India."

The petition argued that prisoners charged with trivial crimes were being held in jail for five
to ten years without a fair and reasonable trial. An example was given of Reena Kumari, who
was charged in 1976 but had no knowledge of the reasons for her arrest. Her jail ticket
showed that she had been taken to court on several occasions, but no court had time to hear
her case. These issues led Kapila Hingorani to file the petition on January 11, 1979.

The petition faced challenges due to irregularities, such as lacking a power of attorney and
being based on an article instead of an affidavit. However, due to Hingorani's persistence, the
case was presented before a bench of three judges: P N Bhagwati, R S Pathak, and A D
Koshal. The preliminary hearing was scheduled for February 5, 1979, and notice was issued
to the State of Bihar to take appropriate action. However, the State did not appear at the
hearing, which prompted the court to order the release of all the mentioned undertrial
prisoners on non-monetary bond or personal sureties.

The court decided to proceed based on the allegations reported in Rustomji's article, as they
found the information disturbing and capable of stirring the conscience of legal-minded
citizens, judges, or lawyers.

Recognizing the gravity of the matter, the court expanded the scope of the litigation and
ordered the submission of data regarding undertrial prisoners held for over 18 months. The
State appeared at the next hearing on February 19, 1979, but did not question the
irregularities of the petition or the reliance on the article. Instead, they focused on explaining
the steps taken by the Bihar government to address the problem of excessive pre-trial
detention.

During the third hearing, the court discovered that several prisoners, including women and
minors, were not held on any charges but were in "protective custody" because they were
homeless, refugees, witnesses to crimes, or victims of crimes. The court deemed this
"protective custody" to be a clear violation of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which
guarantees the right to life and liberty. As a result, the court ordered their immediate release,
providing them with access to basic living conditions and transferring them to rescue homes.

On March 5, 1979, Justices DA Bhagwati, PN Bhagwati, and Kaushal expanded the case to
address the right to legal aid. They referred to Article 39A, which was added to the
Constitution in 1976, and declared it as a constitutional right.

Overall, this case highlighted the issues within the criminal justice system, led to the release
of undertrial prisoners, and expanded the rights of individuals to legal aid in India.
 ISSUE OF THE CASE
The Hussainara Khatoon case raised important issues about the rights of people who are
awaiting trial, also known as undertrials, and the right to receive free legal assistance. It
primarily focused on Article 32 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the right to
constitutional remedies, as well as Article 21, which protects the right to life and liberty, and
Article 39A, which guarantees free legal aid to marginalized sections of society.

The question in this case was whether the court would consider the petition under Article 32
and recognize that the detention of undertrials was illegal due to provisions in the Criminal
Procedure Code, thus violating constitutional guarantees. Alternatively, the court could have
declined to intervene in the matter, citing procedural technicalities.

Another important aspect of the case was whether the right to a speedy trial falls within the
scope of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which protects the right to life and liberty.

Additionally, the case raised the question of whether the provision in Article 39A of the
Directive Principles of State Policy, which relates to providing free legal aid to the poorer
sections of society, can be enforced by law or made justiciable.

In simpler terms, the Hussainara Khatoon case dealt with the rights of people awaiting trial
and their access to legal aid. The court had to decide whether it would consider the case and
acknowledge that the detention of undertrials was unconstitutional. They also had to
determine if the right to a speedy trial is protected by the Indian Constitution. Lastly, the case
examined whether the provision for free legal aid to the disadvantaged, as stated in the
Directive Principles of State Policy, could be enforced by law.
 ARGUMENT OF THE PETITIONER
The petitioner argued that the undertrial prisoners had been unlawfully imprisoned without
being given a fair trial. These prisoners had been held in jail for charges that, even if proven
true, would not result in a lengthy punishment.

In response, the respondents contended in their counter-affidavit that many undertrial

prisoners, who were the petitioners in this case, were held in Patna Central Jail, Muzaffarpur
Central Jail, and Ranchi Central Jail. The respondents claimed that these prisoners were
regularly presented before the Magistrates and subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
However, the Court found this claim to be unsubstantiated as the respondents failed to
provide specific dates of these remands.

Additionally, to justify the growing number of pending cases, the respondents argued that
investigations in up to 10% of the cases needed to be halted due to delays in obtaining expert
opinions. Nonetheless, the Court rejected this argument by asserting that the State has
alternative methods at its disposal to address such delays.
 ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDANT
In the counter-affidavit, the respondents put forth their argument stating that several
undertrial prisoners in the case, who are not involved in this appeal, are being held in Patna
Central Jail, Muzaffarpur Central Jail, and Ranchi Central Jail. They claimed that these
prisoners were repeatedly presented before the Magistrates and subsequently remanded to
judicial custody. However, the Court found this statement to be unsubstantiated as the
respondents failed to provide specific dates of detention.

Furthermore, the Respondents sought to justify the growing number of pending cases by
stating that investigations are often delayed due to difficulties in obtaining expert opinions.
However, the Court rejected this argument by emphasizing that the State has various
alternative methods to overcome such hindrances.
 RELEVANT ARTICLES AND LAW INVOLVED
The case of Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, Bihar primarily invoked the following
articles and laws:
1. Article 32 of the Indian Constitution: This article provides the right to constitutional
remedies. It allows individuals to directly approach the Supreme Court for the enforcement of
their fundamental rights.
2. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution: This article guarantees the right to life and personal
liberty. It ensures that no person can be deprived of their life or personal liberty except
according to the procedure established by law.
3. Article 39A of the Indian Constitution: This article is a part of the Directive Principles of
State Policy, which are non-justiciable principles that provide guidance to the government in
policymaking. Article 39A specifically deals with providing free legal aid and assistance to
ensure that justice is not denied to the poor and marginalized sections of society.
4. The Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): The CrPC is a comprehensive legislation that lays
down the procedures to be followed during the investigation, trial, and post-trial stages of
criminal cases in India. The provisions of the CrPC were relevant to the case as they were
being challenged for their impact on the rights of undertrial prisoners.
In the Hussainara Khatoon case, the key argument was that the prolonged and indefinite
detention of undertrial prisoners due to delays in the criminal justice system was a violation
of their fundamental rights. The court examined the provisions of the CrPC and their
implementation in Bihar, particularly focusing on the delays in the disposal of cases and the
lack of legal representation for the undertrials.
The court ultimately held that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. It emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied and directed the release of
undertrial prisoners who had been incarcerated for an unreasonable period without trial.
Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of Article 39A and the need to provide
free legal aid to ensure access to justice for the downtrodden sections of society. It held that
the provision in Article 39A should be enforced by the government and directed the
appointment of legal aid lawyers to represent the undertrial prisoners.
In the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary, Bihar, the concept of habeas corpus
was also relevant. Habeas corpus is a legal writ that is used to challenge the legality of a
person's detention. It ensures that a person who is arrested or detained is brought before a
court to determine whether their detention is lawful.
The petitioners in the case argued that the prolonged and indefinite detention of undertrial
prisoners without a fair and speedy trial amounted to a violation of their fundamental rights.
They sought the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of their
continued detention.
The court examined the provisions of habeas corpus and its applicability to the situation at
hand. It held that the right to personal liberty, as protected by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, includes the right to a speedy trial and the right to be released if the detention is
found to be illegal.
The court emphasized that the writ of habeas corpus is an important safeguard against
arbitrary and unlawful detention. It acknowledged that the undertrial prisoners had been
deprived of their liberty for an unreasonably long period without a proper trial, which
violated their constitutional rights. Consequently, the court ordered the release of the
undertrial prisoners who had been detained for an excessive period without sufficient
justification.
In summary, the case highlighted the significance of the writ of habeas corpus as a legal
remedy to challenge the legality of detention and protect the fundamental rights of
individuals, including the right to personal liberty, fair trial, and speedy justice.
Overall, the case highlighted the significance of fundamental rights, especially the right to a
speedy trial and access to free legal aid, in ensuring justice and protecting the rights of
undertrial prisoners in India.
 JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The judgment in the case of Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar expanded the scope of
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and shed light on the significant issue of a large number of
undertrial prisoners. The case revealed the alarming state of affairs regarding the
administration of justice in Bihar. Many individuals, including men, women, and children,
were imprisoned for minor offenses, which, even if proven guilty, would result in a maximum
imprisonment of only a few months or a year or two. However, these individuals were
deprived of their freedom and liberty for several years without their trials even commencing.
This situation is a disgrace to the legal system, as it infringes upon the rights of the public and
hinders their liberty rather than upholding it. It is crucial for us to awaken our conscience and
acknowledge the fact that numerous individuals, including men, women, and children, are
awaiting justice. The law, which should be a tool for justice, has become an instrument of
injustice, leaving these individuals as helpless victims of the legal and judicial system's
indifferent nature.

The court referenced the judgment in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978),
which established that any procedure that keeps a large number of people behind bars without
a fair trial for an extended period cannot be considered "reasonable, fair, and just." The
Maneka Gandhi case emphasized the importance of expeditious trials and freedom from
imprisonment as essential aspects of human rights and basic liberties. The case stated that the
right to a speedy trial is a fundamental freedom.

One of the factors contributing to the slow justice system and the high number of pre-trial
detentions is the outdated and unsatisfactory bail system. This system relies on the
assumption that the risk of financial loss is the primary deterrent against the accused fleeing
from justice. However, after the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code, we continue to
blindly follow this antiquated system. In this system, an accused person can be released on
their personal bond, which requires a monetary obligation. If the accused fails to appear at
trial, they are required to pay a significant sum of money. Unfortunately, the Indian bail
system is not designed to benefit the poor or destitute. It primarily benefits the upper and
non-poor sections of society. It is practically impossible for financially disadvantaged
individuals to afford the unexpectedly high bail amounts. This often makes it challenging for
them to satisfy the police and magistrate regarding their solvency. Moreover, finding solvent
individuals to stand as sureties is also an impossible task. To address this issue, the Gujarat
government established The Legal Aid Campaign under Justice PN Bhagwati, which
suggested looking at enlightened bail systems in the US, such as the Manhattan Bail Project
and DC Bail Project. These projects have shown that one can ensure the accused's presence at
trial without requiring monetary bail. The Gujarat Committee concluded that the practice of
fixing bail amounts without considering factors such as the accused's residence duration,
social reputation, criminal history, financial records, employment status, and likelihood of
fleeing from trial is harsh and oppressive for the poor.
In light of this, the court held that every magistrate in the country has a positive obligation to
inform the accused about their right to bail and provide them with a lawyer at the state's
expense to assist them in obtaining bail. The court also directed compliance with the
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, specifically Section 167(5) and Section 468.
These provisions mandate the release of undertrial prisoners whose chargesheets have not
been filed within the limitation period and the release of undertrials or accused individuals
who have exceeded their maximum punishment.

Additionally, the court ordered the release of all undertrial prisoners who were accused of
bailable offenses and have already served a sentence longer than the maximum punishment
for those offenses. Furthermore, if the police investigation is delayed by two years, and the
charge sheet is not submitted within three months, the court directed the state to withdraw the
case, as established in the case of Nimeon Sangma v. Home Secretary, Government of
Meghalaya. The court also instructed the government to establish rescue shelters and welfare
homes for individuals who have no place to seek care.
 CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

These cases highlight the utmost importance of ensuring the right to a speedy trial for every
citizen. It is essential to recognize that instances exist where individuals who are wrongly
convicted are, in fact, innocent of the charges brought against them. These cases often
involve procedural errors that violate the rights of the accused individuals. For example,
Mohammed Ali Bhat, a shawl trader from Kashmir, was arrested by the Delhi police in 1996
and imprisoned as a suspect in the Lajpat Nagar blast and Samlethi blast cases. However, the
Rajasthan High Court recently declared him "not guilty." This case exemplifies how
individuals can spend years in prison for crimes they never committed due to the sluggish
nature of our justice system.
Statistics concerning Indian prisons reveal that a significant majority, approximately 76.1%
of inmates, are undertrials who are confined to jail without being found guilty of the alleged
crimes. Even when bail is offered, many impoverished individuals cannot afford the required
fees. The time spent in jail not only deprives them of their freedom but also has a profound
impact on their lives even after their release. Society often fails to distinguish between
undertrial prisoners and those who have been convicted. As a result, these individuals face
ongoing stigma and challenges in reintegrating into society.
The judgment in Hussainara Khatoon v State of Bihar was a significant step in addressing the
issue of undertrial prisoners and the flaws in the administration of justice system in Bihar. It
shed light on the alarming situation where individuals, including men, women, and children,
were held in custody for extended periods without their trials even commencing. The
judgment rightly emphasized the importance of a fair and speedy trial, as well as the
protection of fundamental rights and liberties.
One of the key strengths of the judgment was its recognition of the right to a speedy trial as a
fundamental freedom. By citing the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the
court established that any procedure that keeps a large number of individuals behind bars
without a fair trial for an extended period cannot be considered reasonable, fair, and just. This
acknowledgment of the significance of expeditious trials and freedom from imprisonment as
essential aspects of human rights and basic liberties was commendable.
The judgment also brought attention to the flaws in the bail system and its disproportionate
impact on the poor and marginalized sections of society. By highlighting the antiquated and
unsatisfactory nature of the bail system, the court rightly criticized the assumption that
monetary loss is the only deterrent against accused individuals fleeing from justice. The
court's reference to the enlightened bail systems in the United States, such as the Manhattan
Bail Project and DC Bail Project, provided valuable insights into alternative approaches that
do not solely rely on financial obligations.
Moreover, the court's directive for magistrates to inform the accused about their right to bail
and provide them with legal assistance at the state's expense was a positive step towards
ensuring access to justice for all individuals, irrespective of their socio-economic
background. This was a crucial aspect of the judgment that aimed to address the systemic bias
against the poor in the criminal justice system.
However, there are certain aspects that could be subject to critical analysis. While the
judgment rightly highlighted the problems and provided guidelines for the release of
undertrial prisoners, it may have been more effective if it had outlined specific mechanisms
or reforms to address the underlying causes of the issue. Merely ordering the release of
certain categories of undertrial prisoners does not necessarily address the systemic issues that
lead to their prolonged detention.
Additionally, the judgment primarily focused on the state of Bihar, which limits its impact to
a specific region. While it served as an important precedent, it would have been more
impactful if it had addressed the issue at a broader national level, considering that the
problem of undertrial prisoners is not limited to Bihar alone.
Furthermore, the judgment did not delve into the complexities and challenges associated with
ensuring the right to a speedy trial in a country as populous and diverse as India. It did not
provide comprehensive solutions to streamline the judicial process and address the factors
contributing to delays in trials, such as a lack of adequate infrastructure, shortage of judges,
and procedural bottlenecks.
 NOTABLE OBSERVATIONS
Firstly, it has been established that a law that keeps a large number of prisoners in detention
for a long period of time goes against the principle of "just, reasonable, and fair" restrictions
outlined in Article 21. This necessitates a change in the approach to pre-trial detention,
ensuring a procedure that is just, reasonable, and fair, aligning with the Supreme Court's
decision in the Menaka Gandhi case.
Secondly, the highest court held that a speedy trial is crucial to the criminal justice system,
and any delay in the trial process itself constitutes a denial of justice. Although the right to a
speedy trial is not explicitly mentioned as a fundamental right, it is implied within the broader
scope and content of Article 21. A reasonably expeditious trial is an integral part of the
fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.
Prompt trials and freedom from detention are essential components of human rights and basic
freedoms. A judicial system that allows the prolonged incarceration of individuals without
trial denies them their human rights and deprives them of basic freedoms.
Furthermore, the court attributed the delays in the legal and judicial system, which
consistently denies justice to the poor by subjecting them to prolonged pretrial detention, to
the flawed bail system. This system is primarily focused on financial considerations and
wrongly assumes that the risk of monetary loss is the sole deterrent against absconding.
Thirdly, the bench observed that the bail system disproportionately affects the poor, as only
those who are financially well-off can take advantage of it and secure their release. The
economically disadvantaged struggle to provide bail, even without requiring sureties, because
often the bail amount set by the court is unreasonably high. In cases where sureties are
required, which is typically the norm, it becomes nearly impossible for the poor to find
individuals who are financially solvent enough to stand as sureties.
The bench acknowledged the need to take into account the circumstances of the accused,
particularly those from impoverished backgrounds. If it can be sufficiently proven that such
individuals are not likely to flee, then a personal bond should be sufficient. Only when the
court finds insufficient evidence to convince them that the accused will not abscond,
especially for individuals belonging to the poorer segments of society, should sureties be
required.
Consequently, the bench called for a reform of the bail system to address the adverse effects
of poverty and ensure fair and just treatment of the poor in the administration of justice. It is
imperative to thoroughly revamp the bail system so that it becomes equally accessible to the
poor, just as it is for the wealthy, without compromising the interests of justice.
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS CASE
"Justice delayed is justice denied" is a commonly used phrase emphasizing the importance of
timely justice for individuals. The concept of speedy trial aims to ensure that justice is
delivered promptly while adhering to fair and just legal procedures. The case of Hussainara
Khatoon vs Home Secretary, State of Bihar brought to light the dire situation of undertrial
prisoners in Bihar who were denied their fundamental right to justice due to their
impoverished conditions. The court's observations expanded the scope of Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, recognizing the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of the right to
life.
This case holds significance as it was one of the first instances of a public interest litigation
filed in a court of law by Pushpa Kapila Hingorani, an advocate in the Supreme Court who
later earned the title of "Mother of Public Interest Litigation." Hingorani later exposed the
Bhagalpur Blindings case, where some policemen had brutally blinded 33 suspected
offenders using needles and acid.
In 2005, the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended to include Article 436A. This article
states that if an undertrial has already undergone detention for a period equivalent to half of
the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, they should be released on bail with
personal bonds as security. The court may extend the detention beyond this period or release
the person on bail, based on the public prosecutor's input and recorded reasons.
The Hussainara Khatoon case had a significant impact on the Indian judicial system. Within
four months of filing the case, it led to the release of 400,000 undertrial prisoners out of
1,200,000. This case gained national and international attention, with extensive media
coverage aiding in data collection and investigation. The Law Commission also raised
concerns about speedy trials due to this case. It shed light on the atrocities faced by
undertrials and violations of their rights through prolonged imprisonment. It was the first time
that the Supreme Court was accessible to the most impoverished, raising awareness about
prisoners' rights. The Hussainara Khatoon case sparked judicial activism in neglected cases
and established the principles of speedy trial. It also paved the way for the development and
investigative nature of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and highlighted the remedial powers of
the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution.
In subsequent cases like Anil Yadav v. State of Bihar and Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, the
court addressed the issue of barbaric acts committed under the guise of public interest and
safety. These cases emphasized the need for a speedy trial and held that individuals involved
in such acts should face swift justice.
However, despite the landmark judgment, the implementation of its directives was a major
challenge. Advocate Kapila Hingorani filed an application in the Hussainara Khatoon case,
requesting the court to order an affidavit from the State of Bihar to ensure compliance with
the issued orders. The court agreed, recognizing that issuing directions alone was insufficient,
and monitoring implementation was necessary to prevent them from becoming mere paper
directives.
The case of Hussainara Khatoon played a crucial role in shaping the understanding of PIL as
a non-adversarial remedial jurisprudence, empowering the Supreme Court and High Courts
under Articles 32 and 226 of the Indian Constitution to protect the public's fundamental
rights, acting in the interest of the public.
 RELEVANCE IN PRESENT TIME
Observations made in the case of Hussainara Khatoon vs Home Secretary; State of Bihar
continue to be widely cited by various courts, even in the present time. These observations
affirm that the right to a speedy trial is an essential component of Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution. This is particularly relevant in the context of undertrial prisoners, as prolonged
detention infringes upon four fundamental rights: the right to liberty, freedom of movement,
freedom of occupation, and the right to dignity. It also violates their legal right to vote.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in The Prosecutrix Vs. State of M.P. & Ors, held that every
citizen, including the complainant and victim, has a fundamental right to receive justice
without undue delay. However, the respondents in the case were causing delays and impeding
the principle of speedy trial and right to access justice. The court referred to the Hussainara
Khatoon case to emphasize the importance of these rights.
In the aforementioned case, a minor who had been raped and had the video of the act
circulated on the internet faced repeated and prolonged questioning, which caused immense
harassment and further delayed the trial. The conditions outlined by the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), which require the completion of the trial
within a year, were also being violated. In response, the court ordered the immediate disposal
of the case.
In the Elgar Parishad case, the Bombay High Court reiterated the observations made in
Hussainara Khatoon after the death of an 84-year-old priest in custody due to the lack of
medical assistance and delayed admission to the hospital. The court emphasized that the right
to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and shed light on the deplorable conditions that
undertrial prisoners endure. This brought attention to the negative conditions highlighted in
the Hussainara Khatoon case, particularly regarding the plight of undertrial prisoners and the
right to a speedy trial.
 CONCLUSION AND MY OWN OPINION
The case of Hussainara Khatoon marked the beginning of increased awareness and social
consciousness. However, the problem of undertrial prisoners remains unresolved and
unchanged. Many people are still unaware of their rights, but it's important to understand that
the law helps those who are vigilant and take action. In simpler terms, if you're watchful and
proactive, the law will support you.
Another important point is that the government needs to realize that monetary loss alone is
not enough to prevent people from evading justice. Our outdated bail system needs to be
updated and improved. The law should have a broader reach, and the case of Hussainara
Khatoon played a vital role in showing how Public Interest Litigation (PIL) can be used to
address social issues and promote justice. It empowered the judiciary to take an active role in
fighting corruption, terrorism, and the criminalization of politics.
The significance of this case can be understood from the fact that nearly 40,000 individuals
who were awaiting trial were released as a result of the court's decision. The case inspired
many socially concerned individuals and lawyers to speak up for the rights of the poor and
utilize the power of PIL to achieve justice.
In my opinion, the case of Hussainara Khatoon was a landmark moment in promoting social
justice and the rights of undertrial prisoners. It shed light on the need for a speedy trial and
highlighted the flaws in the existing bail system. The case paved the way for judicial activism
and the use of Public Interest Litigation to address societal issues. It was a significant step
towards ensuring justice for the marginalized and vulnerable sections of society.
 LIST OF THE CASES REFERRED
1.Maneka Gandhi vs Union of India (1978):
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded by the government without providing her with an
opportunity to be heard or stating the reasons for such action.
Issue:
Whether the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution and whether the principles of natural justice were violated in impounding the
passport.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the right to travel abroad is encompassed within the right to
personal liberty under Article 21. The court emphasized that any restriction on this right must
comply with the principles of natural justice and be reasonable.

2. Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan (1997):

Facts:
Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was sexually harassed at her workplace. However, there
were no laws or mechanisms in place to address such incidents.
Issue:
Whether there is a need to develop guidelines to prevent and address sexual harassment at
the workplace.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that in the absence of legislation, employers and institutions are
required to follow certain guidelines to prevent sexual harassment at the workplace. The court
laid down guidelines known as the Vishaka Guidelines, which provided a framework for
addressing sexual harassment at workplaces.

3. Nilabati Behera vs State of Orissa (1993):

Facts:
A person named Dhananjoy was allegedly tortured and killed in police custody. His mother,
Nilabati Behera, filed a petition seeking compensation for the violation of her son's
fundamental rights.
Issue:
Whether compensation can be awarded for the violation of fundamental rights, specifically
the right to life, under Article 21.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that compensation can be awarded for the violation of fundamental
rights, including the right to life. The court emphasized the need to provide redress to victims
or their families in cases of custodial violence or violation of human rights.

These cases, like the Hussainara Khatoon case, deal with the protection of fundamental rights
and the role of the judiciary in upholding those rights and ensuring justice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY