Published Paper Details:

Timely delivery of justice is part of human rights. Right to a speedy trial is integral part of Rule of Law and Constitutionalism. Not only India, many countries across the globe are suffering with backlogs in criminal adjudications. Inordinate delay in disposal of criminal cases, reduces the trust of common man in the criminal justice administration. Hon�ble Supreme Court of India in Hussainara Khatoon v. Union of India recognized right to a speedy trial as part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. From pre-independence to till date executive, legislature and judiciary took several steps to address the problem through legislative, administrative and judicial reforms. Despite of efforts, pendency rate in criminal trials is increasing day-by-day in India. Questions were raised before the Hon�ble Supreme Court about the fixation of outer time limit for disposal of criminal cases. In Raj Deo Sharma v. State of Bihar I & II, the apex court rejected the idea of fixing a time frame for speedy disposal of criminal cases, stating that acquittal of accused on the basis non-disposal of the case within the prescribed limitation period, is a danger to the existence of the criminal justice system. In 2016, Supreme Court of Canada in R. Jordan prescribed a presumptive ceiling limit for ensuring the right to a speedy trial of the accused with an exception to criminal cases involving adults. In 2020, R v. K.G.K, the similar presumptive ceiling limit has been extended to the cases involving youth. However, the apex court of Canada laid down the caution rule, how long is too long, will depend on a host of factors, the existence of which will depend on the peculiar circumstances of each case. The article analyzed the stand of Indian judiciary over fixing an outer time limit for the conclusion of criminal trial and comparing the India�s position with Canada.