Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: RTI Act connection with Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Criminal cases that are pending....

  1. RTI Act connection with Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Criminal cases that are pending....

    Dear All,

    Herewith I share put my view for your valuable comments to enpower the RTI Act to get justice to the innocent Accused persons of a criminal cases ...

    I believe that RTI is the best tool to stop malpracticies of the police and the relevent details are as described below:

    As per RTI Act citizens can seek information from the office of PA through either PIO or through PA. RTI Act is enacted to empower the right of the cisitzens that are guaranteed under Article 19 of Constitution of India.

    In a criminal case matter the accused has every right to know why police is acting against him ... if police is acting against the citizens menas the police is affecting the fundamental right of the citizen and the Artilce 21 of Constitution of India is applicable.

    To secure the fundamental right of the accused/citizen that is guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India the citizen can use RTI tool (Life and Liberty) which is nothing but invoking Artilce 19 and 21 simultaneously to get information through which the accused/citizen could defend the criminal case effective without any dely so that speedy trail and speedy justice can be achieved that is guranteed under Artilce 20 and 21 of Constitution of India.

    I believe that unless Article 19 of Constitution of India (RTI Act) is enforced effectively the fundamental rights that are guranteed under Artilce 20 and 21 of Constitution of India can not be protected.

    If police fails to provide requested information within 48 hours the the fundamental rights of citizen/Accused that are guranteed under Artilce 19, 20 and 21 of Constitution of India are affected by the action of police.

    Many times the police say the requested information is not attracting the provision of Life and Liberty hence information no need to send in 30 days.

    I believe that if FIR is registered against any accused/citizen from that movement onwards the citizen has right to defend the case hence citizen needs information and any dely would definitely cause dammages to the citizen.


    a. P. Ramachandra Rao vs State Of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 in which it is held that
    It is not necessary for our purpose to reproduce all those propositions. Suffice it to state that in the opinion of the Constitution Bench (i) fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily; (ii) right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely, the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial; (iii) who is responsible for the delay and what factors have contributed towards delay are relevant factors.

    and in case of S.P.Gupta & Ors. v. President of India and Ors. (AIR 1982 SC 149) relying on the ratio in Raj Narain (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court held that:

    “…The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a). Therefore, disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy an exception justified only where the strictest requirement of public interest so demands. The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest, bearing in mind all the time that disclosure also serves an important aspect of public interest…” (para 66, page 234)

  2. Re: RTI Act connection with Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Criminal cases that are pending....

    Some more Citations:

    The width of vision cast on Article 21, so as to perceive its broad sweep and content,
    by the seven-Judge Bench of this Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC
    248] inspired a declaration of law, made on 12-2-1979 in Hussainara Khatoon (I) v. Home
    Secy., State of Bihar [(1980) 1 SCC 81] that Article 21 confers a fundamental right on every
    person not to be deprived of his life or liberty, except according to procedure established by
    law; that such procedure is not some semblance of a procedure but the procedure should be
    “reasonable, fair and just”; and therefrom flows, without doubt, the right to speedy trial. The
    Court said:
    “No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as
    ‘reasonable, fair or just’ and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be
    no doubt that speedy trial, and by speedy trial we mean reasonably expeditious trial,
    is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined
    in Article 21.”
    Many accused persons tormented by unduly lengthy trial or criminal proceedings, in any
    forum whatsoever were enabled, by Hussainara Khatoon (I), statement of law, in
    successfully maintaining petitions for quashing of charges, criminal proceedings and/or
    conviction, on making out a case of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to
    speedy trial and fair procedure has passed through several milestones on the path of
    constitutional jurisprudence.

  3. Re: RTI Act connection with Article 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and Criminal cases that are pending....

    My point is that:

    If the requested information is supplied to the acused under RTi Act then the Accused could approach the High Court under Artilce 226/227 or under 482 of CrPC to get speedy justice (considering that Magistrate Court has no power to act to protect the accused)


    P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka16. Speaking for the majority, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as his Lordship then was) while affirming that the dictum in A.R. Antulay's case (supra) is correct and still holds the field and the propositions emerging from Article 21 of the Constitution and expounding the right to speedy trial laid down as guidelines in the said case adequately take care of right to speedy trial, it was held that guidelines laid down in the A.R. Antulay's case (supra) are not exhaustive but only illustrative. They are not intended to operate as hard and fast rules or to be applied like a strait-jacket formula. Their applicability would depend on the fact-situation of each case as it is difficult to foresee all situations and no generalization can be made. It has also been held that it is neither advisable, nor easible, nor judicially permissible to draw or prescribe an outer limit for conclusion of all criminal proceedings.

    Nonetheless, the criminal courts should exercise their available powers such as those under Sections 309, 311 and 258 of CrPC to effectuate the right to speedy trial. In appropriate cases, jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution can be invoked seeking appropriate relief or suitable directions. The outer limits or power of limitation expounded in the aforenoted judgments were held to be not in consonance with the legislative intent.


    RTI INDIA: Invoking Your Rights. We provide easy ways to request, analyze & share Government documents by use of Right to Information and by way of community support.

Follow us on

Twitter Facebook Apple App Store Google Play for Android