The Right to Speedy Trial Under Article 21

According to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to a speedy trial is an essential part of one’s personal liberty. During criminal procedures, it protects people against protracted uncertainty, psychological distress, and unfair restriction of liberty. The Supreme Court reiterated that this constitutional guarantee is unaffected by the gravity or type of the offence in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 7). The ruling restates a fundamental tenet: prolonged incarceration of undertrials without significant trial progress contradicts the fundamental principles of constitutional fairness, and pre-trial detention is not punishment.

Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Speedy Trial

The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the right to speedy trial into Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty, even though the Constitution does not specifically mention it. The Court acknowledged in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) that a delay in justice is equivalent to a denial of justice, especially for undertrial inmates who are detained for longer than the maximum punishment.

A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak (1992), where the Court held that the right to a speedy trial applies at all stages of criminal proceedings, from investigation to appeal, and that no strict timeframe could be prescribed, although undue delay would warrant judicial intervention, consolidated this body of precedent.

Since a protracted delay can undermine justice, one of the fundamental goals of the criminal justice system is the prompt trial of offences. Therefore, it is argued that one of the fundamental components of an organized society is speedy justice. It is generally recommended that a matter be resolved as quickly as possible, but it is also asserted that fundamental standards that guarantee justice cannot be disregarded due to the widely accepted adage that “justice hurried, justice buried.” Since the primary goal of every legal system is to provide everyone with full justice, there should be a healthy balance between fundamental standards and a speedy trial.

The Arvind Dham Case: Facts and Judicial Reasoning

The Delhi High Court’s August 19, 2025, order denying Dham bail was being challenged in a plea that the Bench was considering. Dham is a non-executive director of M/s. ACIL Ltd., a business registered under the Companies Act, and a former promoter and non-executive chairman of Amtek Auto Ltd. (AAL).

IDBI Bank and Bank of Maharashtra filed FIRs on December 21, 2022, accusing Dham and twenty-seven other people of violating Sections 120B, 420, 406, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Fraud allegations totalling Rs 385.35 crore and Rs 289 crore, respectively, are included in the FIRs. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) filed two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) on March 21, 2023, alleging money laundering based on the aforementioned FIRs.

The Supreme Court ordered the CBI and SFIO to carry out a thorough investigation and to assist and supplement the ED in gathering evidence on February 27, 2024.

The main thrust of the accusations against Dham is that he is the ultimate beneficiary of the fraud, which was a well-planned scheme carried out at his request and involved the diversion and siphoning of public funds through multiple entities, causing public sector banks to suffer significant wrongful loss.

On July 9, 2024, he was placed under arrest. Only Dham had been taken into custody out of 28 people. There have been 208 cited prosecution witnesses. The prosecution’s complaint has not yet been acknowledged.

Arvind Dham has been detained since July 9, 2024, following actions taken by the Directorate of Enforcement in accordance with the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA). Prosecution complaints had been filed, but cognizance had not been taken, and the matter was still in the document scrutiny stage. The Court determined that there was no realistic chance of the trial starting anytime soon despite the citation of 210 prosecution witnesses.

The Delhi High Court’s ruling denying bail was overturned by the Supreme Court, which noted that prolonged detention without the start or reasonable progression of a trial essentially turns pre-trial detention into punishment, which is unconstitutional.

Economic Offences and the Bail Jurisprudence

The Court unequivocally ruled that economic offences do not represent a homogeneous class that warrants a general refusal of bail, rejecting the claim that the seriousness of these offences justifies extended detention. Statutory constraints cannot be read in a way that leads to indefinite pre-trial imprisonment under the PMLA, where the maximum sentence is seven years, as this would violate Article 21.

Based on a consistent line of precedents, including Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, Padam Chand Jain, and V. Senthil Balaji v. State, the Court emphasized that extended incarceration strongly favours bail, particularly in cases where the prosecution already has a large amount of documentary evidence.

The Bench held:

“The right to a speedy trial, enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, is not eclipsed by the nature of the offence. Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial, without commencement or reasonable progress of the trial, cannot be countenanced, as it has the effect of converting pretrial detention into a form of punishment. Economic offences, by their very nature, may differ in degree and fact, and therefore cannot be treated as a homogeneous class warranting a blanket denial of bail.”

Delay Attributable to the Prosecution

The Court’s determination that the Enforcement Directorate itself was responsible for a significant delay is a crucial component of the decision. The ED appealed the Special Court’s September 2024 notice to the potential accused before the High Court, which led to an eight-month delay of proceedings. The trial had already stalled considerably when the petition was withdrawn in May 2025.

The Court dismissed claims that Dham had influenced witnesses or embezzled criminal gains, pointing out that there was no substantial evidence connecting him to such actions after his detention.

Judicial Role in Upholding Article 21

The judgment, which was written by Justice Alok Aradhe, reiterated that Article 21 is applicable regardless of the type of offence. The State or prosecuting agency cannot object to bail based solely on the gravity of the charges if they are unable to guarantee a speedy trial. By preventing procedural law from being used as a tool of oppression, this strengthens the judiciary’s position as the protector of constitutional rights.

Growing Relevance of the Right to Speedy Trial in Contemporary India

Undertrial detention has become a critical human rights issue due to the growing reliance on strict special statutes like the PMLA, UAPA, and NDPS Act. Prosecutorial delays, extensive documentation, and intricate investigations have resulted in cases where undertrials are detained for years without a decision. An increasing judicial awareness that liberty cannot be surrendered at the altar of administrative inefficiency is reflected in the Supreme Court’s recent bail jurisprudence.

Comparative International Perspective

The right to a prompt trial is acknowledged as a fundamental human right on a global scale. The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Long-term pre-trial incarceration is a violation of the right to a fair trial, according to the European Court of Human Rights’ interpretation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Similar to this, the Sixth Amendment in the US expressly guarantees a timely trial, and courts evaluate delays using a balancing approach.

India’s developing legal system is becoming more and more in line with these international standards, which strengthens the idea that procedural justice is universal.

Conclusion

First principles of the Constitution have been significantly reaffirmed by the decision in Arvind Dham v. Directorate of Enforcement. The Supreme Court has reinforced the constitutional foundation of individual liberty by ruling that the seriousness of the accusations cannot supersede the right to a speedy trial. The ruling emphasises that pre-trial detention must continue to be the exception rather than the rule and that constitutional rights must be upheld even in situations involving grave economic offenses. This decision is an important reminder that justice delayed is liberty denied at a time of growing criminal statutes and drawn-out trials.

Sharing is caring!