IMPORTANCE OF FAIR TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 21

ABSTRACT

The concept of a fair trial is fundamental to ensuring justice and upholding the rule of law. Under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, the right to life and personal liberty is guaranteed, which includes the right to a fair trial as an essential component. A fair trial ensures that individuals accused of crimes are treated with dignity, given an opportunity to defend themselves, and judged impartially. It encompasses principles such as the presumption of innocence, access to legal representation, transparency in proceedings, and equality before the law. This paper highlights the significance of a fair trial in preserving democratic values, protecting human rights, and maintaining public confidence in the judicial system. By examining judicial interpretations and the interplay of Article 21 with other constitutional provisions, it underscores the role of a fair trial in fostering a just society while safeguarding individual freedoms against arbitrary actions by the State.

KEYWORDS

Fair trial, Fundamental, Justice, Indian constitution, Right to life and personal liberty, crimes, legal representation, equality before the law, Democratic values, Human rights, public confidence, freedom, State.

INTRODUCTION

In a criminal trial, justice must be served for all involved parties, including the defendant, victims, and the broader community, with the primary objective of uncovering the truth. Every individual is entitled to a just legal proceeding. A “fair trial” encompasses lawful and appropriate opportunities for the accused to demonstrate their innocence. A crucial aspect of this right is the ability to present evidence supporting one’s defence. Denying this privilege in a criminal case is tantamount to denying a fair trial. The Indian Constitution’s Article 21 safeguards the rights of those convicted. There are numerous principles governing impartial trials, which will be explored further.

Every defendant is entitled to a fair trial, which is protected by various legal provisions. The importance of fair trials cannot be overstated in the context of human rights protection. Many individuals have suffered and continue to suffer due to unjust legal proceedings. Unfair trials significantly impact a person’s rights, mental well-being, and social standing. The right to a fair trial is also encompassed within human rights protections, and violations of this right constitute human rights abuses. The Indian legal system incorporates numerous measures to protect these rights. Moreover, individuals in need should be provided with complimentary legal counsel. Every accused person has the right to a speedy trial. The Importance of fair trial under Article 21.[1] The concept of a fair trial is recognized as a fundamental principle in international human rights law and has been incorporated into the legal systems of numerous nations. Countries such as the United States, Canada, and India have embraced this principle and enshrined it within their respective constitutions. Various international documents have outlined the parameters of the right to a fair trial. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established in 1948, encapsulates the essential components of a fair criminal trial.

FAIR TRIAL

The principle of a fair trial is rooted in the fundamental belief that the government and its institutions are responsible for bringing lawbreakers to justice. In their efforts to combat crime and wrongdoing, the state and its representatives must not abandon ethical conduct or resort to unlawful methods to apprehend criminals or solve cases. After all, how can authorities demand good behaviour from citizens if their own actions are reprehensible, unfair, and illegal? Consequently, the procedures employed by the state must be equitable, impartial, and rational. Courts in India have acknowledged that the main purpose of criminal procedure is to ensure accused individuals receive a fair trial. The value of human life should be respected, and a person charged with any offense should not face punishment unless they have been granted a fair trial and their guilt has been established through such proceedings.

In the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and others vs. State of Gujarat and ors[2], India’s Supreme Court noted that every individual possesses an inherent right to a fair criminal trial. The court emphasized that denying a fair trial is equally unjust to the accused, the victim, and society at large. The concept of a fair trial encompasses proceedings before an unbiased judge, with an impartial prosecutor, in an environment of judicial serenity. It necessitates the elimination of any prejudice or bias against the accused, witnesses, or the case being tried. The right to a fair trial serves as a crucial protection, ensuring that people are shielded from unlawful or arbitrary deprivation of their human rights and freedoms, with particular emphasis on the right to personal liberty and security of person.[3]

RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT UNDER ARTICLE 21

The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to a fair trial as a fundamental right. Article 21 protects individuals from being deprived of life and personal liberty except through legal procedures. This article emphasizes the quality of life, the right to live with dignity, and the right to livelihood as essential aspects of individual existence. It also ensures the right to a reasonable, fair, and just trial.

In the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[4], the Supreme Court interpreted the right to life to encompass both physical existence and the right to live with dignity. The right to a fair trial also includes access to information that could be used against the accused, allowing them a fair opportunity for defence.

The P. Ramachandra Rao v. the State of Karnataka (2002)[5] case established that Sections 309, 311, and 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure uphold the right to a speedy trial. The Criminal Procedure Code’s Section 482 and Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution allow the High Court to issue appropriate remedies and instructions. Article 21 primarily focuses on the fundamental right to a speedy and fair trial.

Section 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which deals with evidence for the defence, mandates that trial courts must issue procedures when the accused requests the summoning of witnesses or the production of documents for their defence.

PRINCIPLES OF A FAIR TRIAL

Adversary trial system.
Presumption of innocence.
Independent, Impartial and Competent judge.
Knowledge of accusation.
Right to open trial .
Right to free legal aid.
The trial in presence of accused.
Evidence to be taken in presence of accused.
Protection against illegal arrest.
Right to bail.
Prohibition on double jeopardy.
Right against self-incrimination.
Adversary trial system: The Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 employs an adversarial system rooted in accusatorial methodology. This approach places the burden of evidence production on the prosecution, with the judge serving as an impartial arbitrator. The criminal trial process assumes that the state will utilize its investigative bodies and government attorneys to prosecute offenders, who in turn will employ skilled legal counsel to contest and refute the prosecution’s evidence. The Supreme Court has noted that for a criminal court to effectively administer justice, the presiding judge must abandon the role of a passive observer and mere recorder, instead becoming an active participant by demonstrating keen, intelligent interest in the proceedings.

In the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v. State of M.P. and Ors.[6], the highest court stated that if the court believes a fair trial as envisioned by the Code is not being conducted, and the prosecuting agency or prosecutor is not fulfilling their duties adequately, the court may exercise its authority under section 311 of the Code or section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This allows the court to summon material witnesses and obtain relevant documents to ensure justice is served.

Presumption of innocence: In criminal trials, the accused is initially presumed innocent. The prosecution bears the responsibility of demonstrating guilt, and unless this burden is met, courts cannot declare the accused guilty. This principle stems from the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, which means the onus of proof lies with the asserter, not the denier. The Supreme Court, in State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors.[7], stated that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right, subject to statutory exceptions, and forms the foundation of Indian criminal jurisprudence.

In Kali Ram v. State of H.P.[8], the Court emphasized that while wrongful acquittals are undesirable and undermine public faith in the judicial system, the wrongful conviction of an innocent person is far more severe, with wide-reaching consequences in a civilized society.

Prosecutors, defence attorneys, and all public officials involved in a case have an obligation to uphold the presumption of innocence by avoiding premature judgments about the trial’s outcome.

Independent, Impartial and Competent judge: The cornerstone of a fair trial is the requirement that criminal proceedings be conducted by a competent, autonomous, and unbiased court. Given that the state acts as the prosecutor and the police are a state agency in criminal trials, it is crucial that the judiciary remains free from any perceived executive influence, whether direct or indirect. In India, the responsibility for ensuring a fair and impartial trial falls entirely on the judicial system. A fundamental tenet is that no individual should judge their own case. The Code’s Section 479 prevents judges or magistrates from presiding over cases in which they are involved or have a personal stake. This disqualification can be overridden with permission from a higher court.

In the case of Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan[9], the court noted that the issue is not whether bias actually affected the judgment. Instead, the true test is whether circumstances exist that could reasonably lead a litigant to believe that bias from a judicial officer may have influenced the final decision. Section 6 of the Code is pertinent in this context, as it distinguishes between courts of Executive Magistrates and those of Judicial Magistrates. Similarly, Article 50 of the Indian Constitution mandates that states take measures to separate the judiciary from the executive branch.

Knowledge of accusation: A fundamental aspect of a fair trial is providing the accused with sufficient opportunity for self-defence. This opportunity becomes meaningless if the accused is not informed of the charges against them. To address this, the Code of Criminal Procedure states in sections 228, 240, 246, and 251 that when an individual is brought to court for trial, they must be informed of the specific offense they are accused of committing. For more serious offenses, the court is required to formally draft a written charge, which must then be read and explained to the accused. A charge is not an abstract accusation but a specific allegation of an offense supposedly committed by an individual. Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code outlines the right to receive a precise and specific accusation.
Right to open trial : A fair trial necessitates a public hearing in an open court. This right implies that proceedings should generally be conducted verbally and publicly, without requiring specific requests from the parties involved. A judgment is deemed public when it is either verbally announced in court, published, or made public through a combination of these methods. While Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates open courts for public hearings, it also grants discretion to the presiding judge or magistrate to restrict public access or exclude specific individuals if they deem it necessary due to indecent content, potential disturbances, or other reasonable causes.

In Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra[10], the Supreme Court emphasized that the right to an open trial should only be denied in exceptional circumstances. High courts possess inherent jurisdiction to conduct trials or portions thereof in camera or prohibit the publication of certain proceedings. The case of State of Punjab v. Gurmit established that excessive publicity can be detrimental to female victims of rape and other sexual offenses, potentially impacting their future and social standing. Section 327(2) stipulates that inquiries and trials related to rape or offenses under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, or 376-D of the Indian Penal Code must be conducted in camera.

Right to free legal aid: The concept of a fair trial encompasses allowing defendants to choose their legal representation and, in certain cases, requiring the government to provide it. According to the Law Commission of India’s 14^th Report, a Welfare State has an obligation to offer free legal services to financially disadvantaged individuals. This right to legal representation, as outlined in Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution, is further reinforced by Article 39 A, which reflects the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The trial in presence of accused: To ensure a fair trial, all case proceedings must occur in the presence of the accused or their legal representative. This fundamental principle prevents ex parte proceedings against the defendant in criminal trials. It also enables the accused to comprehend the prosecution’s case and identify witnesses, facilitating proper defence preparation. While the Code doesn’t explicitly mandate the accused’s presence during trial, Section 317 of Cr.P.C allows magistrates to proceed without the defendant if their attendance is deemed unnecessary for justice or if they consistently disrupt court proceedings. Courts should only require the accused’s appearance when it benefits them or is essential for effective case resolution, avoiding undue harassment.

Section 273 of Cr.P.C stipulates that all trial evidence must be presented before the accused or, if their personal attendance is excused, their legal representative. For a fair trial, defendants must receive full defence opportunities. This requires providing them with copies of the charge sheet, relevant investigation documents, and witness statements collected by police. Section 238 of Cr.P.C mandates that magistrates supply these documents to the accused at no cost. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equal treatment of parties regarding evidence introduction through witness interrogation. The prosecution must inform the defence about intended trial witnesses within a reasonable timeframe, allowing sufficient preparation. To ensure fairness, the accused or their counsel must have ample opportunity to cross-examine prosecution witnesses.

Evidence to be taken in presence of accused: A fundamental aspect of a just trial is the presentation of evidence in the defendant’s presence, which ensures transparency and fairness in the judicial process. This practice enables the accused to comprehend and confront the evidence against them through cross-examination. It safeguards procedural integrity by preventing judgments based on unexamined or confidential evidence, which could result in judicial errors. Additionally, it enhances accountability, as both witnesses and prosecutors must present their case openly, allowing the court to evaluate the evidence’s reliability and credibility. Ultimately, this approach upholds the defendant’s right to a fair defense and strengthens public trust in the legal system.

Protection against illegal arrest: According to Section 50, individuals arrested without a warrant must be promptly informed of the reasons for their arrest. Law enforcement officers are expected to be vigilant in identifying potential criminal activity while being cautious not to wrongly accuse innocent people. When an arrest is challenged in court, the onus is on the arresting officer to demonstrate reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The court in Pranab Chatterjee v. State of Bihar[11] ruled that Section 50 is compulsory. Failure to communicate the details of the offense to an arrested person renders the arrest and detention unlawful. The grounds may be conveyed verbally or implicitly through actions. Section 57 of Cr.P.C. and Article 22(2) of the Constitution mandate that an arrested individual must be brought before a Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. In State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh[12], the court determined that warrantless arrests require greater safeguards, and the 24-hour production requirement ensures prompt judicial review of the arrest’s legality.

Right to bail: According to Section 436, individuals accused of offenses listed as bailable in the First Schedule of the Code can request bail as a legal right. Bail essentially means release from confinement, particularly from police custody. A bail order restores the accused’s freedom of movement, provided they agree to appear for trial. In bailable cases, bail is granted without further requirements. However, bail under Section 389(1) following a conviction is not guaranteed, regardless of whether the offense is bailable or non-bailable. If no charge sheet is submitted within the specified 60/90 day period, detained individuals have the right to be released on bail. For non-bailable offenses, if a charge sheet is not filed within 60 days, the Magistrate can grant bail without notifying the opposing party. Bail provisions for women, ill individuals, and elderly persons are given precedence, depending on the nature of the offense.
Prohibition on double jeopardy: The principle of double jeopardy stems from the doctrines of ‘autrefois acquit’ and ‘autrefois convict,’ which prohibit retrying an individual for the same offense or for a different offense based on identical facts after they have been acquitted or convicted. This principle embodies the common law rule of nemo debet vis vexari, meaning no person should face jeopardy twice for the same offense. Section 300 of the Code stipulates that individuals cannot be tried again for the same offense or for any other offense based on the same facts once they have been convicted or acquitted. However, the double jeopardy plea does not apply when the current proceedings are separate and distinct from the offense for which the accused has previously been tried and convicted.

The S.A. Venkataraman v. Union of India[13] case involved an appellant dismissed from service following an inquiry under the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1960. Subsequently, he faced prosecution for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the inquiry proceedings did not constitute a prosecution for an offense, but rather a fact-finding mission to advise the Government on disciplinary action. Therefore, it could not be considered that the person had been prosecuted.

Right against self-incrimination: Article 20, Clause (3) states: “No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.” This provision is rooted in the principle that no individual is obligated to incriminate themselves.

In State of Bombay vs. Kathi Kalu[14], the Supreme Court clarified that “being a witness” differs from “providing evidence.” Self-incrimination involves conveying personal knowledge, not merely producing documents in court that may illuminate aspects of the case but don’t contain the accused’s personal statements. Compulsion refers to duress, including threats or harm to one’s family members. Thus, Article 20(3) doesn’t apply when a confession is made without coercion.

The Supreme Court In Selvi v. State of Karnataka[15] concluded:

Collecting and storing DNA samples as physical evidence is constitutionally permissible in India.
Involuntary subjection to narco-analysis, polygraphy, and brain fingerprinting tests violates privacy rights and Article 20(3) by forcibly interfering with mental processes.
Statements made under narco-analysis should be treated similarly to responses during regular interrogation, as the person speaks in a drug-induced state.

The principles of a fair trial ensure justice and protect individual rights. They include the adversary trial system, presumption of innocence, and an impartial, competent judge. The accused must be informed of charges, have access to free legal aid, and be present during the trial and evidence presentation. Trials should be open to the public, with safeguards against illegal arrest and the right to bail. Additionally, the principles prohibit double jeopardy and self-incrimination, ensuring fairness and due process throughout the legal proceedings.

REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN CASE OF DELAY IN PROCEEDINGS

The fundamental right to a swift trial is embedded in Article 21 of the constitution, which safeguards the right to life and personal freedoms. The Constitution allows individuals to petition the Supreme Court under Article 32 and the High Court under Article 226 when fundamental rights are infringed upon.
In the case of P.Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka[16], the court established protocols and determined that criminal tribunals should employ the authority granted by Sections 309, 311, and 258 of the code of Criminal Procedure to implement the Right to Speedy Trial.
Efficient court administration: Proper time management should be implemented to enhance the effectiveness of the judicial system.
Measures for Judges: Regular training and workshops should be provided to judges to enhance their drafting, hearing, and writing abilities, as well as their capacity to make accurate and quick decisions. Additionally, increasing the judge-to-population ratio would facilitate faster case resolution.
Cases should be allocated based on judges’ areas of expertise: Assigning cases according to judges’ specialized knowledge means that a judge well-versed in criminal law should handle criminal cases, while one with extensive labour law experience should preside over labour disputes, and so on for other case types.
Arbitration should be employed when possible, and made mandatory for minor and petty cases to conserve valuable court time.
The adjournment process should be modified to limit its use, with fines imposed on those requesting adjournments on trivial grounds.
Technological Courts and Swift Justice: Recent scientific advancements in technology can greatly contribute to achieving this goal. In the past two decades, information technology has brought numerous positive changes to our lives and can be equally beneficial in dispensing justice.
Nyaya Panchayats should be empowered to resolve small and petty cases. However, Lok Adalats were established to expedite case resolution at the lower levels.

CONCLUSION

Article 21 of the Indian Constitution underscores the significance of a fair trial as a fundamental pillar of justice and democratic governance. This principle safeguards individuals’ right to life and personal liberty by ensuring equitable legal proceedings and protecting against arbitrary or prejudiced actions. The fair trial doctrine promotes equality under the law, upholds impartiality, and prevents judicial errors, thereby sustaining public trust in the legal system.

A fair trial serves to protect the innocent and ensure that guilty parties are punished through proper legal channels, thus reinforcing the rule of law and promoting accountability. It embodies the principles of transparency and impartiality, which are crucial in a democratic society. Ultimately, the fair trial concept ensures that justice is not only administered but also perceived to be administered, bolstering confidence in legal institutions. Consequently, under Article 21, the fair trial principle plays a vital role in preserving human dignity and protecting the fundamental rights of all individuals.

REFERENCES

Legalservice India, fair trial https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10562-right-to-a-fair-trial-under-indian-laws.html ( last visited Dec 9^th ,2024)
.Delhi university , Fair trial, Dr. Kalpna Sharma, https://lc2.du.ac.in/DATA/fair%20trial%20(Dr.%20Kalpna%20Sharma).pdf (last visited Dec 9^th,2024)
Chhattisgarh Human Rights commission, Right to fair and speed trail, https://hrc.cg.gov.in/IntershipReport/sanya%20chandrakar_ppt.pdf ( last visited Dec 11^th ,2024)
National judicial academy, https://nja.gov.in/Concluded_Programmes/2019-20/P-1163_PPTs/1.Right%20to%20Fair%20Trial_Handout.pdf (Last visited Dec 12^th ,2024)
https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/hrdp03/chapter/right-to-fair-trial-under-the-constitution-of-india-part-2/ ( last visited Dec 12^th,2024).

[1] Legalservice India, fair trial, ://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-10562-right-to-a-fair-trial-under-indian-laws.html ( last visited Dec 9^th ,2024)

[2] Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and ors vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 3114, 2004 (4) SCC 158.

[3]Delhi University, Fair Trial, Dr. Kalpna Sharma, https://lc2.du.ac.in/DATA/fair%20trial%20(Dr.%20Kalpna%20Sharma).pdf (last visited Dec 9^th,2024)

[4] Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India (1978),1978 AIR 597, 1978 SCR (2) 621

[5] P.Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka( 2002) 3 S.C.R. 60,2002 INSC 203.

[6] Himanshu Singh Sabharwa v. State of M.P. and Ors.(2008),AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 1943.

[7] State of U.P vs Naresh and Ors, (2011)AIR SCW 1877, 2011 (2) AIR JHAR R 479.

[8] Kali Ram vs State of H.P (1973) AIR 2773, 1974 SCR (1) 722.

[9] Shyam Singh vs State of Rajasthan (2023) 2023:Rj-Jd:41600.

[10] Naresh Sridhar Mirajkar vs State of Maharashtra (1966) 1967 AIR, 1 1966 SCR (3) 744, AIR 1967 SUPREME COURT 1.

[11] Pranab Chatterjee vs State of Bihar(1970) 3 SCC 926.

[12] State of Punjab vs Ajaib Singh (1995) AIR 975, 1995 SCC (2) 486.

[13] S.A. Venkataraman vs union of India 1954 AIR 375, 1954 SCR 1150.

[14] State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu (1961) AIR 1808.

[15] Selvi v. State of Karnataka AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1974.

[16] P.Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1856,

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.