Victim Has Right to Seek Speedy Trial

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar of the Supreme Court decided Renuka Jain v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2026). The Court held that a victim, like the accused, has a right to insist on a speedy and fair trial, and can approach the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for expeditious disposal of the trial. The Court set aside the Delhi High Court's order that had dismissed the victim's petition as frivolous and imposed costs of ₹10,000 on her. 

What was the Background of Renuka Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (2026) Case? 

• The appellant was the de facto complainant in an FIR registered under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• After investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the case was registered before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. 
• Aggrieved by the delay in the trial, the appellant had earlier approached the Delhi High Court.  
  • The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two years after the framing of charges. 
• The trial made little progress, so she again approached the High Court under Section 528 BNSS seeking directions for expeditious disposal. 
• The prosecution questioned her locus standi to institute such proceedings. 
• The High Court accepted the prosecution's objection. It held that:  
  • In a State prosecution, the complainant's role is limited to being a witness. 
  • Only the State or the accused could institute such a petition. 
• The High Court dismissed her plea as frivolous and a drain on the court's overflowing docket, and imposed costs of ₹10,000. 
• The appellant challenged this order before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On the role of the victim: 

• It is not correct to say that the role of the victim is limited to being a witness. 
• A victim or the legal guardian of the victim is a definite stakeholder in the criminal justice system. 
• The victim is not a stranger to the criminal proceedings. She is the one who suffered loss or injury at the hands of the accused. 

On the victim's right to a speedy trial: 

• Like the accused, the victim also has a vested right to insist on a speedy trial and a fair trial. 
• The Court relied on Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh (2026), where it had held that the right to a speedy trial is not only the prerogative of the accused but also a valuable right of the victim. 

On locus standi under Section 528 BNSS: 

• On a reading of the statutory scheme, a victim certainly has locus standi to seek a speedy trial. 
• She can bring a petition under Section 528 BNSS seeking a direction from the High Court to the trial court to expedite the trial proceedings. 

On the High Court's approach and costs: 

• The High Court was not justified in describing the victim's plea as completely frivolous or a drain on the court's dockets. 
• Its decision was based on a complete misreading of the legal and constitutional provisions and could not be sustained. 
• The costs imposed on the appellant were accordingly set aside. 

On directions to the trial court: 

• The State informed the Court that 22 prosecution witnesses had been cited, of whom one had been deleted. 
• The Court recorded that 21 prosecution witnesses remained and that PW-1 was undergoing cross-examination. 
• It directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, within an outer limit of one year from 24th September 2026. 

Conclusion 

• Legal position: The right to a speedy trial is available to the victim as well as the accused. A victim has locus standi to approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS for a direction to expedite the trial. 
• Outcome: The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order and the costs were set aside, and the trial court was directed to conclude the trial within one year from 24th September 2026.

What is Section 528 of the BNSS? 

About: 

• Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 saves the inherent powers of the High Court. 
• It corresponds to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• It does not confer any new power. It only recognises the inherent powers that the High Court already possesses. 

Provision: 

• Nothing in the BNSS shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary:  
  • To give effect to any order under the Sanhita; or 
  • To prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or 
  • Otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 

What is the Right to Speedy Trial? 

About: 

• The right to a speedy trial is not expressly mentioned in the Constitution of India. It has been read into Article 21 as part of the right to life and personal liberty. 
• In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court recognised the right to a speedy trial as an integral part of Article 21. 
• Traditionally, this right was understood mainly as a protection for the accused against prolonged incarceration and the anxiety of a pending trial. 
• Through decisions such as Keshvendra Singh v. Shankar Singh (2026) and Renuka Jain v. State of NCT of Delhi (2026), the Supreme Court has made clear that the victim is equally entitled to this right.