A Study on the Right to Quick and Equitable Trial with Reference to the Constitution of India

Chanchal Khatri

doi:10.53724/ambition/v11n1.05

Authors

Chanchal Khatri Ph.D. Scholar in Law, J.S. University Shikohabad Dist. Firozabad (U.P.), India. https://orcid.org/0009-0003-9823-7160

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.53724/ambition/v11n1.05

Keywords:

Presumption, witnesses, trial, impartiality, Right to Speedy Trial, Fair Trial, Equitable Justice, Constitution of India, Article 21, Fundamental Rights, Natural Justice, Judicial Delay, Access to Justice, Due Process, Legal Aid.

Abstract

It is important that every person is heard in order for the justice system to function effectively. It also results in significant financial loss and psychological suffering. The protection of this right in India is examined in this research paper. It examines significant court decisions that influence the operation of our legal system. Large case backups, a shortage of judges, and protracted investigation delays are among the major issues covered in the paper. The study examines government initiatives to expedite justice as well as procedural laws. It concludes that an equitable trial must be a fair trial as well. This implies that everyone must be treated equally by the legal system, regardless of their financial situation. The laws of India and other nations are compared in this paper. It offers suggestions for resolving court delays. Lastly, it displays.

References

Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225.

Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, (2016) 8 SCC 509 (India).

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, India Code (2023).

Constitution of India. (1950). arts. 14, 21, 22, & 39A.

Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81 (India).

Hussainara Khatoon (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 98 (India).

Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) AIR 1369 and 1979 SCR (3) 532.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, 999 U.N.T.S. 171.

Jain Ms. Anmol 2020 The right to speedy justice in India, (LMIMJ) 2321-6417, Volume 2, Issue 8.

Jawalekalpana v., (2021) The role of electronic justice (e-justice) resource management in the speedy disposal of cases, Lokavishkar International Journal of E., 2277-727X Volume II, Issue II, pp. 71-78.

Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 (India).

Law Commission of India. (2014). Arrears and backlog: Creating additional judicial (wo)manpower (Report No. 245). Government of India. https://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/report_twentieth/

Legal Services Authorities Act, No. 39 of 1987, India Code (1987).

Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).

Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Justice. (n.d.). National Judicial Data Grid. Government of India. Retrieved July 20, 2026, from https://doj.gov.in/the-national-judicial-data-grid-njdg/

Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2012) 2 SCC 584 (India).

National Judicial Data Grid. (n.d.). District and subordinate courts dashboard. Retrieved July 20, 2026, from https://njdg.ecourts.gov.in/

P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578 (India).

Petrovasunchica, (2020) Case resolution by agreement in criminal proceedings, (IJIR) 2454-1362 Volume 2, Issue 4, pp. 75-78.

Qehaja Dr. Rrustem, (2021) Legal proceedings regarding extrajudicial killings in Kosovo, (AJBALSS), 2410-3918, Volume 2, Issue 1, pp. 63-66.

Rattiram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2012) 4 SCC 516 (India).

Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI & Anr. (2025), S.C.M.A No. 2034/2022 & 1849 in SLP (Crl) No. 5191.

Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 731 (India).

Tiwarineeraj, (2020) Due process versus criminal justice administration: an in-depth study of the Indian criminal justice system, Journal of Law and Dispute Resolution, 2006-9804, Volume 2 (4), pp 66-73.

United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights

Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 (India).