Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Phoolan Devi, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in January 1993 seeking a direction for her release from custody and quashing of a large number of criminal prosecutions initiated against her by the State of Uttar Pradesh for offences of dacoity and murder. She had been in custody since February 12, 1983, when she claimed to have voluntarily surrendered in the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that she was a victim of atrocities, including gang rape, by upper caste persons, which drove her to a life of crime. She claimed that she had surrendered on certain terms and conditions offered by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, including assurance that she would be tried only in Madhya Pradesh, death penalty would not be imposed, and she would undergo imprisonment for eight years, after which she would be released. The petitioner argued that she had already been in custody for eleven years, exceeding the alleged eight-year term, and that her continued custody was unlawful and violated her right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. She also contended that about 55 criminal prosecutions were pending against her in the courts of Uttar Pradesh and that all of them should be quashed. The Supreme Court had earlier directed her release on parole by order dated February 18, 1994, in view of the fact that she had been in custody for eleven years. During the proceedings, the State of Madhya Pradesh informed the Court that the petitioner had served out the sentence of three years' imprisonment in the only case against her in that State and that there was no other criminal case in which she was sentenced or wanted. The State of Uttar Pradesh did not produce any subsisting order or judgment of any court requiring her continued custody. The State of Uttar Pradesh had also moved applications in each trial pending in the courts of Uttar Pradesh seeking leave to withdraw the prosecution. The core legal issues before the Court were whether the mere lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecutions entitled the petitioner to quashing of all cases on the ground of violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21, and whether the alleged terms of surrender could be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 32 or had to be proved in the individual criminal trials. The petitioner's counsel, Shri Ram Jethmalani, argued that no justification existed for continuing the prosecutions since the petitioner had been in custody for eleven years, exceeding the alleged eight-year term, and that the further custody had satisfied the terms of surrender. He submitted that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated August 13, 1986 passed by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 268 of the Criminal Procedure Code because of the moral justification for continuing her custody under the terms of surrender. The Court held that the question whether the blame for the delay in prosecution in each criminal case lay on the State alone and not on the petitioner was a question of fact to be considered in each case. Merely because of the lapse of several years since the commencement of prosecutions, it could not be said that continuance of the prosecutions would violate the petitioner's right to speedy trial. The Court further held that the content and effect of the terms of surrender alleged by the petitioner had to be raised and decided in the criminal cases pending against her, and could not be decided on the basis of an omnibus statement in a petition under Article 32. The Court also noted that the State of Uttar Pradesh had moved applications to withdraw the prosecutions, and the alleged terms of surrender might have relevance in those proceedings. Since no authority was shown by either the State of Madhya Pradesh or the State of Uttar Pradesh to justify further custody of the petitioner at that juncture, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to release. However, the release was subject to any order made hereafter by a competent court requiring her to be taken in custody in any pending prosecution. The Court directed that the petitioner, who was on parole by virtue of the order dated February 18, 1994, should continue to remain free, subject to any order of a competent court or authority in any of the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh or any other case. The prayer for quashing the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh was rejected. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 Constitution of India - Mere lapse of several years since commencement of prosecutions does not by itself violate the right to speedy trial; question of blame for delay is a question of fact to be considered in each case - The petitioner claimed that eleven years in custody violated her right to speedy trial and sought quashing of about 55 prosecutions in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that the delay and responsibility for it must be examined in each pending prosecution and cannot be decided on an omnibus statement in a writ petition under Article 32. Held that omnibus quashing of prosecutions is impermissible merely on the ground of lapse of time. B) Criminal Procedure - Terms of Surrender and Withdrawal of Prosecution - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 268 - Alleged terms of surrender, including assurance of release and trial only in Madhya Pradesh, are factual issues to be proved in individual prosecutions - The State of Uttar Pradesh moved applications in each trial seeking leave to withdraw prosecution. The Court held that the content and effect of the terms of surrender alleged by the petitioner had to be raised and decided in the criminal cases pending against her, and not in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Held that the validity or effect of the alleged surrender terms must be examined on proof in each prosecution. C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction and Release from Custody - Article 32 Constitution of India - When no authority is shown by the states to justify further custody, the petitioner is entitled to release subject to future orders of competent court - The State of Madhya Pradesh stated that the petitioner had served out the sentence in the only case against her and no other case was pending; the State of Uttar Pradesh produced no subsisting order requiring custody. The Court held that no authority had been shown to justify further custody and directed that the petitioner, already on parole, should continue to remain free unless a competent court or authority ordered her detention in any pending prosecution. Held that release from custody does not amount to quashing of pending prosecutions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to release from custody and to quashing of all pending criminal prosecutions in the State of Uttar Pradesh on the grounds of violation of the right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and alleged terms of surrender with the Government of Madhya Pradesh
Final Decision
The Supreme Court directed that the petitioner, who was on parole by virtue of the order dated February 18, 1994, should continue to remain free, subject to any order made by a competent court or authority requiring her to be taken in custody in any of the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh or any other case. The prayer in the writ petition for quashing the prosecutions pending in the State of Uttar Pradesh was rejected. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Right to speedy trial under Article 21 is not violated merely by lapse of several years
- delay must be assessed case-wise with blame allocation
- terms of surrender alleged by accused are factual issues to be proved in individual prosecutions
- release from custody is warranted when no subsisting judicial order justifies detention
- quashing of prosecutions cannot be based on omnibus allegations
