https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185128 The right to speedy trial under Article 21 was held to require a case-specific balancing of delay, prejudice and overall circumstances; rigid judicially fixed outer time limits for criminal trials were impermissible because they would amount to judicial legislation and automatic termination on expiry was rejected. Earlier directions in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma were held not to be good law to the extent they mandated hard time bars, while A.R. Antulay was reaffirmed as the controlling precedent. The Court stated that the prior time periods may only serve as reminders when assessing delay in individual cases, and existing procedural and constitutional remedies remain available against oppressive delay. en-us Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 12:35:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185128 The right to speedy trial under Article 21 was held to require a case-specific balancing of delay, prejudice and overall circumstances; rigid judicially fixed outer time limits for criminal trials were impermissible because they would amount to judicial legislation and automatic termination on expiry was rejected. Earlier directions in Common Cause and Raj Deo Sharma were held not to be good law to the extent they mandated hard time bars, while A.R. Antulay was reaffirmed as the controlling precedent. The Court stated that the prior time periods may only serve as reminders when assessing delay in individual cases, and existing procedural and constitutional remedies remain available against oppressive delay. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 16 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185128