Supreme Court of India

Abdul Rehman Antulay v R.S. Nayak

(1992) 1 SCC 22519911 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
A corruption prosecution against a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra had been pending for years, and he sought quashing for delay.
Issue
Whether the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21, and whether an outer time limit should be fixed for criminal proceedings.
Held
Speedy trial is part of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 and covers investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. No fixed outer time limit can be laid down; delay must be judged by balancing the cause of delay, prejudice to the accused, the nature of the offence and other circumstances. Quashing is a possible but not automatic remedy.
Principle
The right to speedy trial is judged by a balancing test, without a fixed outer limit.
Cite this

Facts

  • A corruption prosecution against a former Chief Minister of Maharashtra had been pending for years, and he sought quashing for delay.

Issue

  1. Whether the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21, and whether an outer time limit should be fixed for criminal proceedings.

Held

  • Speedy trial is part of fair, just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 and covers investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. No fixed outer time limit can be laid down; delay must be judged by balancing the cause of delay, prejudice to the accused, the nature of the offence and other circumstances. Quashing is a possible but not automatic remedy.

Cite this

Citation

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

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1200243/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.