Speedy trial under Article 21 requires case-specific balancing of delay, prejudice, and responsibility; prolonged unexplained delay may justify relief.

The right to a speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 and applies from FIR registration through investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. Its breach is assessed case by case by balancing the length and cause of delay, the accused's assertion of the right, the prejudice caused, and the surrounding circumstances, including systemic delay and the accused's conduct. No rigid outer time-limit is prescribed. Where the prosecution cannot proceed despite repeated opportunities and the delay is not attributable to the accused, the Court may grant appropriate relief, including directions affecting prosecution evidence or expeditious continuation of the trial; on the facts described, relief was granted for violation of the right.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution should be quashed or appropriate relief granted on the ground of inordinate delay and denial of the right to speedy trial.

Analysis: The right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 and applies from the stage of registration of the FIR through investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision, and retrial. Whether that right is infringed depends on a balancing of the length of delay, the justification for delay, the accused's assertion of the right, the prejudice caused, and the surrounding circumstances, including systemic delay and the conduct of the accused. A rigid outer time-limit is not prescribed, but where the prosecution is unable to proceed despite repeated opportunities and the delay is not attributable to the accused, the Court may fashion suitable relief, including directions to close prosecution evidence or to ensure expeditious continuation of the trial.

Conclusion: The petitioner's right to speedy trial was held to be violated on the facts, and relief was granted by setting aside the High Court's order and issuing directions for further proceedings in accordance with the judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: The constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 requires a case-specific balancing of delay, responsibility, prejudice, and surrounding circumstances, and where prolonged prosecutorial delay is not attributable to the accused, the Court may grant appropriate relief rather than insist on indefinite continuation of the trial.

---