Author(s): Adv. Mrunal A. Bhide and Dr. Anjula Chowbe
Paper Details: Volume 2, Issue 1
Citation: IJLSSS 2(1) 17
Page No: 207-215
ABSTRACT
The doctrine of fair trial in India acts as the core of the Indian Legal System as it helps to ensure that every trial is conducted before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecution, and in an atmosphere where there is Judicial Calm. To ensure that the purpose of the doctrine of Fair Trial is served, the judiciary plays a vital role. The current research paper aims at analysing the role of Judiciary in implementation of the Doctrine of Fair Trial in India.
INTRODUCTION
The judiciary plays a critical role in upholding the principles of fair trial within a legal system. Its responsibilities extend across various stages of legal proceedings, from pre-trial processes to the adjudication of cases and the enforcement of judgments. Here’s an overview of the judiciary’s role in upholding fair trial principles. The judiciary needs to take care of following aspects to ensure proper implementation of doctrine of fair trial in Indian Legal system
- Interpreting and Applying Legal Frameworks:
The judiciary interprets and applies legal frameworks, including constitutional provisions, statutes, and precedents, to ensure that legal proceedings adhere to fair trial principles.
- Protecting Procedural Safeguards:
The judiciary safeguards procedural safeguards essential for fair trials, such as the right to legal representation, the presumption of innocence, the right to a public trial, and the right to confront witnesses.
- Ensuring Impartial Adjudication:
Judges are expected to act as impartial arbiters, applying the law objectively and without undue influence from external factors such as political pressure or public opinion.
- Overseeing Due Process:
The judiciary oversees due process throughout legal proceedings, ensuring that parties are afforded a fair and transparent process from the initiation of a case through its resolution.
- Reviewing Decisions and Remedies:
Courts review trial decisions and remedies to ensure that they are consistent with fair trial principles, legal standards, and precedents.
- Setting Precedents and Clarifying Standards:
Landmark judgments contribute to the development of fair trial jurisprudence, providing guidance to lower courts, legal practitioners, and policymakers.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The doctrine of fair trial has deep historical roots that can be traced back to ancient civilizations and legal traditions around the world. However, for the sake of brevity and relevance to modern legal systems, I’ll focus on the historical background of the doctrine of fair trial as it pertains to Western legal traditions and its development up to the present day:
ANCIENT ROOTS
The concept of fair trial has roots in ancient civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Ancient Greece, and Rome, where rudimentary legal systems aimed to ensure justice through various procedural safeguards.
In Ancient Rome, for example, the Twelve Tables (449 BC) provided rudimentary rights to accused persons, including the right to defend themselves and the presumption of innocence.
MAGNA CARTA (1215)
The Magna Carta, signed by King John of England in 1215, is often regarded as a foundational document in the development of fair trial rights.
While primarily a political document limiting the powers of the monarchy, the Magna Carta contained provisions guaranteeing certain procedural rights, such as the right to a trial by jury and the right to due process of law.
ENGLISH COMMON LAW
The English legal system played a significant role in shaping the doctrine of fair trial through the development of common law principles.
Key developments included the emergence of the jury trial system, the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, and the principle of open and public trials.
BILL OF RIGHTS (1689)
The English Bill of Rights of 1689, following the Glorious Revolution, further entrenched fair trial rights by affirming the right to trial by jury, the prohibition of excessive bail and fines, and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
These principles later influenced the development of fair trial rights in other jurisdictions, including the United States.
Overall, the historical background of the doctrine of fair trial reflects a centuries-long evolution shaped by legal traditions, political developments, and evolving conceptions of justice and human rights.
CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK
The doctrine of fair trial in India finds its constitutional basis primarily in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty. Over the years, the Indian judiciary has interpreted Article 21 expansively to include various facets of fair trial rights. Here’s an overview of the constitutional framework of the doctrine of fair trial in India:
- Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- Right to Legal Representation:
- Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof
- Right Against Self-Incrimination:
- Right to Speedy Trial
- Right to Fair and Impartial Judiciary
Overall, the constitutional framework of the doctrine of fair trial in India reflects a commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of individuals accused of crimes and upholding the principles of justice, equality, and due process.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AND FAIR TRIAL
Judicial activism in the doctrine of fair trial refers to the role played by the judiciary in interpreting and enforcing fair trial rights beyond what is explicitly stated in statutes or precedents. In India, judicial activism has been instrumental in expanding the scope of fair trial rights and ensuring their effective implementation. Here’s how judicial activism manifests in the doctrine of fair trial:
EXPANSIVE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 21:
Through judicial activism, the scope of Article 21 has been broadened to encompass not only procedural safeguards but also substantive rights essential for a fair trial, such as the right to a fair and impartial judiciary and the right to be heard.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL):
Judicial activism in India is often manifested through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), where the courts take cognizance of matters concerning fair trial rights based on public interest rather than individual grievances.
PILs have been instrumental in highlighting systemic issues such as delays in justice delivery, overcrowding in prisons, and inadequate legal aid, prompting the judiciary to take suo-moto actions and issue directives to address these issues.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE ACTIONS:
Judicial activism involves the judiciary’s proactive role in reviewing legislative and executive actions to ensure their conformity with constitutional principles, including fair trial rights.
Indian courts have exercised judicial review to strike down laws or executive orders that infringe upon fair trial rights, such as laws allowing preventive detention without adequate safeguards or executive actions violating the right to privacy during criminal investigations.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTING THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR TRIAL ACROSS DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS:
Comparative analysis of judicial involvement in implementing the doctrine of fair trial across different jurisdictions can provide valuable insights into best practices and challenges. Here’s a comparative analysis focusing on the judicial involvement in implementing the doctrine of fair trial in India, the United States, and the United Kingdom:
INDIA
Strengths:
Proactive judicial activism: Indian courts have demonstrated proactive involvement in safeguarding fair trial rights through PILs (Public Interest Litigations) and suo moto actions.
Expansive interpretation of fair trial rights: The Indian judiciary has interpreted Article 21 of the Constitution expansively to include various fair trial rights, ensuring protection against arbitrary state actions.
Legal aid and access to justice: Indian courts have taken measures to improve access to justice by promoting legal aid and establishing mechanisms for the representation of marginalized groups.
Challenges:
Judicial backlog and delays: Despite judicial activism, the Indian judiciary faces challenges related to judicial backlog and delays, which affect the timely delivery of fair trials.
Lack of infrastructure and resources: Inadequate infrastructure and resources pose challenges to ensuring effective implementation of fair trial rights, particularly in rural areas.
Limited accountability: Instances of judicial corruption and lack of accountability undermine public trust in the judiciary’s role in ensuring fair trials.
UNITED STATES
Strengths:
Robust constitutional framework: The U.S. Constitution provides a strong foundation for fair trial rights, including the Sixth Amendment guaranteeing the right to a speedy and public trial.
Precedent-based system: The U.S. legal system relies on extensive precedent, ensuring consistency and predictability in the application of fair trial principles.
Independent judiciary: The independence of the judiciary in the U.S. allows courts to adjudicate fairly without undue influence from the executive or legislative branches.
Challenges:
Racial disparities in the criminal justice system: Despite constitutional guarantees, racial disparities persist in the U.S. criminal justice system, raising concerns about the equitable implementation of fair trial rights.
Access to legal representation: Inequality in access to legal representation, particularly for indigent defendants, undermines the fairness of trials in the U.S.
Political interference: Instances of political interference in judicial appointments and legal proceedings have raised questions about the independence of the judiciary and its ability to ensure fair trials.
UNITED KINGDOM
Strengths:
Adversarial system: The UK’s adversarial legal system emphasizes the role of the judiciary as impartial arbiters, ensuring fair trials through rigorous scrutiny of evidence and arguments.
Legal aid and representation: The UK provides robust legal aid and representation mechanisms, ensuring that individuals have access to effective defence counsel regardless of their financial means.
Human Rights Act 1998: The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law through the Human Rights Act 1998 strengthens fair trial protections, including the right to a fair hearing.
Challenges:
Erosion of legal aid: Budget cuts and reforms have led to the erosion of legal aid in the UK, limiting access to justice for vulnerable and marginalized groups.
Media influence and public opinion: The influence of media and public opinion on legal proceedings can sometimes undermine fair trial rights, particularly in high-profile cases.
Brexit and human rights: The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union raises concerns about the future of human rights protections, including fair trial rights, as the country seeks to redefine its relationship with international legal frameworks.
RECENT AND RELEVANT LANDMARK JUDGEMENTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF FAIR TRIAL IN INDIA
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018): While primarily focused on decriminalizing homosexuality, this judgment also reaffirmed the importance of fair trial rights, emphasizing the need for equal protection under the law for all individuals, irrespective of sexual orientation.
Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India & Anr (2018): The Supreme Court, in this case, reiterated the significance of fair trial principles while dealing with issues related to the independence of the judiciary and the selection process for judicial appointments.
Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017)[2]: While not specifically about fair trial rights, this judgment recognized the right to privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. This right is closely linked to fair trial principles, as ensuring privacy safeguards against arbitrary interference in legal proceedings.
Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017)[3]: This landmark judgment declared the practice of Triple Talaq unconstitutional, emphasizing the importance of fair trial rights, particularly for marginalized groups such as Muslim women.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)[4]: Though not recent, this judgment remains a cornerstone in fair trial jurisprudence. It established that the right to a fair trial is not confined to Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) alone but extends to other fundamental rights as well.
M. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006): This case pertained to reservations in promotions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and non-arbitrariness in government actions, reinforcing the principles of fair trial
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the judiciary plays a vital role in the implementation of the doctrine of fair trial within any legal system. Through its interpretation of legal frameworks, protection of procedural safeguards, maintenance of impartial adjudication, oversight of due process, review of decisions and remedies, and establishment of precedents, the judiciary ensures that legal proceedings adhere to principles of justice, equality, and due process.
[1] Affiliation- Sandip University (School of law)
[2] AIR 2018 SC (SUPP) 1841
[3] AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4609
[4] 1978 AIR 597