The Supreme Court has called the two-decade-old jurisprudence that gave primacy to the accused’s right to a fair and speedy trial “old-fashioned”. This reflects a long-overdue correction in the philosophy of Indian criminal justice, which had been shaped by the constitutional necessity of protecting the accused from the coercive powers of the State. It cannot be denied that Article 21 rightly strengthens safeguards against arbitrary arrest, prolonged pretrial detention, custodial violence, and endless trials. Presumption of innocence and the right to liberty are central constitutional commitments in a system where undertrial prisoners often spend years in prison without conviction. Yet, equality must be one of the cornerstones of the principle of natural justice. And therein lay an asymmetry. For in protecting the accused, the system frequently treats the victim and his/her rights as an afterthought. Victims, as a former judge pointed out, usually have little say in the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing. This exclusion deepens the wound of the original crime. Victims deserve the right to participate in the legal process, access information, and receive the assurance that the law acknowledges their suffering. This shift is also reflected in Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherein a victim has an independent statutory right to appeal against an acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. Now the Supreme Court has clearly stated that victims’ rights form an essential part of social justice and the rule of law.
Recognising victims’ rights does not require abandoning constitutional protections for the accused. Indian prisons remain overcrowded, underfunded, and deeply unequal spaces where detention itself often becomes punishment before conviction. Arbitrary arrests, delayed investigations, and routine denial of bail continue to harm the poor and the legally unrepresented most severely. Yet, a justice system cannot claim fairness if it responds to one form of suffering by creating another. The answer lies in balance. Victims must be guaranteed effective participation in proceedings, timely compensation, witness protection, legal support, and a meaningful voice at crucial stages such as bail and sentencing. At the same time, courts must honour the principle of bail being the rule and not the exception and ensure that speedy trials must be treated as a right for all parties involved. The Supreme Court is correct in rejecting an older jurisprudence that overlooked victims in the name of procedural neutrality. Justice depends on an equal moral weightage towards accused and victim.