The Right To A Speedy Trial:

he Supreme Court has ruled that the Right to a speedy trial is a Fundamental Right. Here are two cases
where
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors.Vs.Home Secretary, State Of Bihar Date Of Judgment12/02/1979
tate Of Bihar Date Of Judgment: 08/10/1998
Tt
hey have done so:
Raj Deo Sharma Vs.The S
The Supreme Court has held that:
The accused in these cases might have been on bail - but the injustice of pendency of trial for long
periods is
the uncertainty and the concomitant anxiety suffered by the under-trial. The under-trial is inhibited in
making future plans for his life or executing present ones due to the uncertainty which pendency of trial
brings. His confidence starts to erode and at the end of the trial, even if he is honorably acquitted, the
scars of
the long trial remain. He feels condemned despite the acquittal.
B. Sinha. Date:06 Jan 2004) the
Sup
The Right To Information:
The Supreme Court has held that the right to information is a fundamental right. In its judgment (People's
Union for Civil Liberties and another Vs Union of India and others. Justice S.
reme Court has said that:
Right of information is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The State under
Clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution, however, is entitled to impose reasonable restrictions inter
alia in
the interest of the State.
The govt authority needs to provide information within 48Hrs if rights under life and liberty are affected.
An RTI
is a useful weapon if the police are holding members of your family.
The Right To Be Given A Reason:
The Supreme Court (Daya Ram Vs Raghunath & Ors DATE: 15/06/2007) has stated that the
failure to give reasons is denial of justice. This is a recent judgment and is very useful if the magistrate is
denying
your bail application and no reason is given. Here is an excerpt:
ellate function
nsable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to
Thi
Thi
pare er the
cluding this judgment here, as the right to residence under the DV is being used
nd worse, the
pro
in t
pro
The
Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the
decision
taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Reasons substitute
subjectivity
by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of
the
sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their app
or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an
indispe
the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone
against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made,
in
other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or
quasi-judicial performance.
The Right To Residence Under The Clumsily Drafted Domestic Violence Act:
s judgment of the Supreme Court (Batra Vs Batra. Mar 2007) is of paramount importance to your parents.
s judgment defines the right to shared household and defines the meaning of a shared household. If your
nts or siblings own the house you live in, then, the right of your spouse to reside in the same house, und
DV Act, does not apply. I am in
for extortion. The economy is booming and in every city, real estate prices are going up. By claiming
residence
under the DV Act, an attempt is made to grab or lock down the property for extortion. Think about it; the
parents are facing a 498A and to top it, the accuser files a right to residence to harass them a
tection officer grants it because he doesn't know the rules. How long will these senior citizens and retirees
last
hese circumstances, if they are denied the right to live in peace in their own homes and their rightfully
earned
perty is being denied to them?
Supreme Court in this judgment says:
19. Learned Counsel for the respondent Smt. Taruna Batra stated that the definition of shared household
includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic
relationship. He
Copyright: ipc498A.wordpress.com 16/26 4/9/08