Kerala High Court Upholds Right to Speedy Trial, Allows Limited Adjournment

Court balances counsel's health with constitutional imperatives, rejects venue shift request

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has emphasized the importance of the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, while acknowledging the genuine hardships faced by legal counsel due to health issues. The judgment, delivered by Justice C.S. Dias, pertains to a criminal miscellaneous case involving petitioners accused in a serious crime, pending trial at the Additional Sessions Court-I, Palakkad.

The petitioners, accused Nos. 1 and 8 in the ongoing trial, had sought an adjournment due to their counsel's health condition, exacerbated by the lack of an elevator in the court premises. Despite acknowledging the counsel's continuous treatment for diabetic neuropathy and other ailments, the court has rejected the request to shift the trial venue to a ground-floor court hall, deeming it disruptive to the functioning of other courts.

The court's decision highlights the delicate balance between accommodating legitimate health-related requests and maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the judicial process. It underscores that while the administration of justice must remain sensitive to the difficulties faced by court officers, it cannot afford to be paralyzed by them. Instead, alternative solutions such as electronic video linkage for cross-examinations should be considered, aligning with modern practices in the era of hybrid hearings.

Justice Dias has allowed a partial adjournment, deferring the trial until December 14, 2025, and ensuring the completion of the trial by March 25, 2026, as previously directed. This extension grants the petitioners' counsel time to recuperate or arrange for alternative representation. The court also set aside the impugned order that had denied further adjournment, thereby providing the petitioners with a fair opportunity to conduct their defense.

The judgment reiterates the fundamental right of under-trial prisoners to a speedy trial, urging the court to expedite proceedings while balancing constitutional imperatives and pragmatic considerations. The court's refusal to change the trial venue respects the heavy pendency and operational demands of existing courts, ensuring minimal disruption to the judicial system and litigants.

This decision not only underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional rights but also reflects its adaptability to evolving legal landscapes, embracing technological solutions to uphold justice while navigating practical challenges.

Bottom Line:

The Kerala High Court emphasizes the importance of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, balancing the genuine hardships of legal counsel with constitutional imperatives and the need for efficient administration of justice.

Statutory provision(s): Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 120B, 109, 118, 324, 326, 307, 302, 465, 471, and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27(3) r/w Section 7(a) of the Arms Act.

Ramesh.K v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810117