In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court recognized right to speedy trial as part of Article 21. Which reform was NOT a direct outcome of this and subsequent judgments?

Right to speedy trial reforms: (a) Hussainara Khatoon (1979): Recognized right to speedy trial implicit in Article 21; led to release of undertrials detained longer than maximum sentence, (b) Subsequent reforms: (i) Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: Established NALSA, State/District Legal Services for free legal aid, (ii) Prison reforms: Humane treatment, rehabilitation programs, vocational training, (iii) Procedural safeguards: Time-bound investigation, trial monitoring, case management systems, (c) P. Ramachandra Rao (2002): Clarified no fixed time limit; courts balance nature of offence, delay reasons, prejudice to parties, (d) NOT outcome: Mandatory life imprisonment for undertrials — would violate Article 21; reforms focus on procedural fairness, not punitive measures, (e) Contemporary applications: (i) E-courts: Digital case management to reduce delays, (ii) Fast Track Courts: Expedited trial for sexual offences, POCSO cases, (iii) Undertrial Review Committees: Periodic review of undertrial detention. Illustrates procedural due process: Article 21 interpreted to require fair, timely justice, not just substantive rights.