Skip to main content

Critical Analysis on Right to a fair trial under Indian Laws

 Critical Analysis on Right to a fair trial under Indian Laws

The basic goal of criminal process is to ensure that everyone accused of a crime receives a fair trial. The concept of a fair trial is inextricably linked to the fundamental and internationally recognised human right1. It should be highlighted, however, that the fairness of a criminal trial should not be judged on an absolute basis.

The severity of the charge, the time and money that society can afford to invest, the quality of the available resources, the prevailing societal values, and other factors will all have to be considered when determining whether or not a criminal trial is fair. It is hoped that this document will provide an overview of the common characteristics of a fair criminal trial.

The following are the characteristics of a fair trial:

  • System of adversaries

  • Judge who is independent, unbiased, and competent

  • The location of the trial

  • The presumption of innocent is a legal concept that refers to the assumption that

  • Accused person's rights

  • Trail that moves quickly

Every single person whether innocent or accused has the right to legal aid. This right is also a constitutional right embodied in Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. The right to counsel is one of the fundamental rights according to the supreme law in India. In the case of Khatri v. State of Bihar, it was held that the accused is entitled to free legal counsel not only at the stage of trial but also when he is first produced before the Magistrate and also when remanded. Article 39A has also been introduced by the 42nd Amendment in 1976 in Indian Constitution to provide free legal aid to the persons who cannot afford a lawyer for his defence. Sections 303 and 304 of Cr.PC also provide for the right to legal aid through a counsel to every accused.

The main purpose of India's criminal justice system is to ensure fair and impartial trials against all defendants imprisoned in the Indian Territory. Our country follows a system of opposition to conduct the defendant's trial. Under this system,  the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilty beyond  reasonable suspicion. India's criminal justice system follows several principles to ensure impartial justice, but  India lags behind indicators of the rule of law. According to the World Justice Project (WJP), India is ranked 68th out of 128 countries in the 2019 Rule of Law Index.

The Criminal Justice of India is embodied with all the necessary provisions required for a fair trial of an accused but still, the country lags behind in the Rule of Law Index. The major reason behind this is that the delay and other irregularities in the implementation of the abovementioned principles of a fair trial. For instance, an expeditious trial is one of the major principles of a fair trial, but have you witnessed any criminal case which has been disposed off by the courts within a span of 2 years? The answer to this question will be no. Similarly many other irregularities such as delayed investigations, expensive and complicated legal process, judicial corruption etc. Caused a decline in India's rank in the 2019 Rule of Law Index.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree