'Delay In Trial Offends Article 21 Everyday': Orissa HC Expedites Trials Of Alleged ‘Tribal Extremists’ Detained Since 8 Yrs

While providing relief to the petitioners, a Division Bench of Justices Subhasis Talapatra and Savitri Ratho noted,

“…the Petitioners are languishing in custody for about 8 years. During their detention to their dismay, they were shown to be accused in some cases in which investigation is pending… This is a ploy to keep the Petitioners behind the bars. The delay in completing the trial appears un-surmountable and the Petitioners’ right enshrined under Article 21 is offended every day.”

Submissions of Parties

It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that they are poor tribal ladies and they intended to improve their standard of life for which they participated in certain non-violent activism to further their cause. It was contended that the petitioners have fundamental rights to voice their grievances and that activism cannot be brought within the fold of criminality.

It was further submitted that the petitioners are in the judicial custody for over last eight years being implicated in a number of cases and they cannot be blamed for the said delay in progress of the trial. As such, it was argued, it is the duty of the State to take all such appropriate steps to complete the trial, as expeditiously as possible in just and fair manner.

However, the State raised the question of maintainability of the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. It relied on Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben v. State of Gujarat and Ors., where the Apex Court held that unless the writ court is satisfied that a person has been committed to jail custody by virtue of an order that suffers from the vice of lack of jurisdiction or absolute illegality, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued.

Court’s Order

After hearing the contentions, the Court was of the view that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in the present case. But at the same time, it held that the fundamental constitutional aspects, as raised by the petitioners needs consideration by the Court.

“The Petitioners are poor tribal ladies. They cannot be pushed to further litigation by merely accepting the technical objection raised by Mr. Katikia, learned Additional Government Advocate. We shall lay our observations later, after scrutinizing the statements and the information made available to us,” the Court added.

The Court relied upon the dictum laid down in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Patna and observed,

“If a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair or just, such deprivation would be violative of his fundamental right protected under Article 21 and he would be entitled to enforce such fundamental right and secure his release. No procedure which does not ensure a speedy trial can be regarded as reasonable fair or just and it would play foul with the provisions of Article 21.”

Pursuant to the order of the Court dated 09.09.2022, the State filed short affidavits providing the status of the cases as referred in the writ petition and also the status of the investigation, wherever it was relevant. The petitioners also filed an updated statement in response to the affidavits filed by the opposite parties.

After thoroughly perusing the materials on record, the Court said,

“…on thorough examination and verification of all cases which are pending or where trial has already been completed, no such information is available about complicity of the other two Petitioners, namely, Nikita Majhi @ Minati @ Bumbuli Narengeke [the Petitioner No.2] and Sushanti Majhi @ Jhunu [ the Petitioner No.3]. Therefore, we can safely hold that against the Petitioners No.2 and 3 there are no cases where the investigation is pending. Even against the Petitioner No.1, there is no case is pending in the investigation stage.”

The Court noted that there are two cases against the petitioners where recording of evidence is over and the cases are posted for accused statement.

“So far as these two cases are concerned, we direct those courts to complete the trial by the next 04 months, else the Petitioners involved in those cases be released on bail on suitable terms and conditions. Seven cases where after completion of investigation, charge-sheets have not been filed against the Petitioners, the Petitioners are deemed to have been discharged from the criminal liability.”

The Bench also enlisted certain cases where though trials have commenced but are yet to be completed. It ordered the concerned trial courts to complete the trials latest by 30.08.2023, failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to be released on bail.

Case Title: D. Anita Majhi @ Mila v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No.: WPCRL No. 93 of 2022

Judgment Dated: 9^th February 2023

Coram: S. Talapatra & S. Ratho, JJ.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. P.K. Jena, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Janmejaya Katikia, Additional Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 21