Question

Two PIL cases :-

sheela barse vs state of Maharashtra ( Feb -15 , 1983 )​

Answer 1

Sheela Barse & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 August, 1986

Equivalent citations: JT 1986 136, 1986 SCALE (2)230

Author: P Bhagwati

Bench: Bhagwati, P.N. (Cj)

PETITIONER:

SHEELA BARSE & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/08/1986

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

BENCH:

BHAGWATI, P.N. (CJ)

MISRA RANGNATH

CITATION:

JT 1986 136 1986 SCALE (2)230

ACT:

Constitution of India, 1950, Article 21-Speedy trial-

Whether fundamental right of accused.

Children Act, 1960 Children-offences by-Not to be kept

in Jail-To be kept in remand homes or released on bail.

Criminal Trial-Investigation of offences by children-

Completion within three months of lodging complaint / FlR-

Trial-Completion within six months-Necessity of.

HEADNOTE:

On 12th July, 1986 this Court issued various directions

in regard to the physically and mentally retarded children

as also abandoned or destitute children who are lodged in

various jails in the country for 'safe custody'.

Giving further directions,

HELD: 1. The right to speedy trial is a fundamental

right implicit in Art. 21 of the Constitution. If an accused

is not tried speedily and his case remains pending before

the Magistrate or the Sessions Court for an unreasonable

length of time, it is clear that his fundamental right to

speedy trial would be violated unless, of course, the trial

is held up on account of some interim order passed by a

superior court or the accused is responsible for the delay

in the trial of the case. The consequence of violation of

the fundamental right to speedy trial would be that the

prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the

ground that it is in breach of the fundamental right. [566E-