PrepDosePrepDose
DailyPrelims CAFree PDF
DailyPrelims CAFree PDF
PrepDosePrepDose

AI-curated current affairs for competitive exams. Your daily dose of exam-ready news.

contact@prepdose.in

Quick Links

  • Today's Dose
  • Prelims 2026 PDF
  • Browse
  • Archive
  • About

Exams Covered

  • UPSC CSE
  • TNPSC
  • UPPSC
  • BPSC
  • MPSC
  • KPSC
  • RPSC
  • WBCS
  • APPSC
  • TSPSC
  • GPSC

Subjects

  • Polity & Governance
  • Economy
  • Environment & Ecology
  • Science & Technology
  • International Relations
  • History & Culture

© 2026 PrepDose. All rights reserved.

Powered by AIMade in India
HomeDictionary

UPSC Dictionary

Did you know?

The 42nd Amendment (1976) added the words 'Socialist', 'Secular', and 'Integrity' to the Preamble of the Constitution.

Generating explanation with verified sources...

HomeDictionary

UPSC Dictionary

[Hussainara Khatoon case]

The Hussainara Khatoon case is a landmark constitutional judgment of the Supreme Court of India, delivered in a series of orders starting on March 9, 1979. The case, formally titled Hussainara Khatoon & Ors. v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, originated from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Kapila Hingorani. The PIL was prompted by newspaper reports exposing the plight of thousands of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who had been detained for years, often longer than the maximum sentence for their alleged minor offences, without trial.

The case solved the problem of prolonged pre-trial detention and the denial of legal representation to the poor. The core ratio decidendi of the judgment is that the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The Court, led by Justice P.N. Bhagwati, held that any procedure that results in an unreasonable delay in trial violates this constitutional protection. Furthermore, the judgment established that the right to free legal aid for an indigent accused is also a constitutional obligation of the State and an essential part of a fair procedure under Article 21 and Article 39A (a Directive Principle of State Policy).

The mechanism involved the Supreme Court directing the immediate release of many undertrial prisoners and ordering the State Government to provide a lawyer at its own cost for those charged with bailable offences. The case is directly connected to the development of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in India, setting a precedent for social action litigation to enforce the fundamental rights of the disadvantaged. It also reinforced the principles laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) by requiring that any procedure depriving a person of liberty must be fair, just, and reasonable. The principles established in this case were later reaffirmed and expanded in judgments like A. R. Antulay v. R. S. Nayak (1992). The judgment's emphasis on free legal aid directly influenced the eventual establishment of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

References

  • ipleaders.in
  • lawbhoomi.com
  • indiankanoon.org
  • gktoday.in
  • nayalegal.com
  • lawfullegal.in
  • recordoflaw.in
  • alec.co.in
Back to Dictionary