Title of the EssayProtection of Fair Trial Rights in Criminal
CasesDetails of Author Name Jubair BhatiCourse & Year of Study
- B.B.A. LL.B. [II Year - IV Semester]Address School of Law,
Raffles University, Japanese Zone, National Highway-8,
Neemrana-301705, District-Alwar, RajasthanE-mail-Id
[email protected] Number +91-8875296213Name &
Address of University School of Law, Raffles University, Japanese
Zone, National Highway-8, Neemrana-301705, District-Alwar,
Rajasthan
PROTECTION OF FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL CASESKeywords: Human
Rights, Magna Carta, UDHR, Fair Trial, Rule of law, Natural
JusticeAbstract:Basically we could not have peace, or an atmosphere
in which peace could grow, unless we recognized the rights of the
individual human beings, their importance, their dignity, and
agreed that was the basic thing that had to be accepted throughout
the world.The horizons of human rights are galloping. After the two
horrific and devastating World Wars, people began to be concerned
about human rights and the protection of such rights. But before
that, as early as in 1215, that venerable document, the Magna
Carta, proclaimed: to none will we sell, deny or delay right or
justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in its
preamble states: where as it is essential, if man is not to be
compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against
tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by
the rule of law, thus requirement is to strengthen the
consciousness of individuals as well as individual states so that
not a single violation of human rights go unchallenged.One such
facet of the human rights is Right to Fair Trial which is commonly
considered so central to our system of justice and so much a part
of our legal heritage now days that to deny that people in general
have any such right might seem tantamount to impugning our legal
traditions as a whole. It would be unthinkable to allow destroying
the essential power and duty to protect fair trial of persons
accused of crimes. The raison dtre of this essay is to analyze the
different legal and constitutional safeguards available which
ensure a fair trial in conformity with the rule of law and natural
justice.
Introduction:No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or
disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs,
or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against
such a man or send against him save by lawful judgment of his peers
or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell or deny or delay
right or justice.[footnoteRef:2] [2: The Law of the Land clause of
Magna Carta, 1215.]
It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent
suffers.[footnoteRef:3] This is because the consequences of
convicting an innocent person are so significantly serious that its
reverberations are felt throughout a civilized
society.[footnoteRef:4] For example, the sentence served by an
innocent person cannot be erased by any subsequent act of
annulment.[footnoteRef:5] Hence, to ensure as far as possible that
no court will wrongfully convict an innocent person, an accused
person is presumed innocent until proven guilty with the
prosecution bearing the burden of establishing the facts necessary
to prove guilt. [3: Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin
Vaughan, 14 March 1785.] [4: Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh,
1973 AIR SC 2773.] [5: Ibid., paragraph 28.]
The all-embracing principle of equality before the
law[footnoteRef:6] renders the fundamental importance of
presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings which has found a
wide scope in the human rights established under Right to Fair
Trial.[footnoteRef:7] Every person has the right to a fair trial in
both criminal and civil cases, and the effective protection of
human rights very much depends on the practical availability of at
all times of access to independent, impartial and competent courts
of law which can certainly administer justice fairly. This may
perhaps make the legal pillar of democratic society respectful of
the rule of law[footnoteRef:8] in order to comply with the basic
structure of the Constitution of India[footnoteRef:9]. Moreover,
the concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the
instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of
discharging their function in a fair and just
manner.[footnoteRef:10] [6: The Constitution of India, Article 14.]
[7: Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249.] [8: Albert
V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the
Constitution (10th edition, Oxford University Press, 1885).] [9:
His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala
and Another, AIR 1973 SC 1461.] [10: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of
India, AIR 1970 SC 150.]
The Right to Fair Trial flows from broader fundamental right to
life guaranteed under Article 21 of, the fundamental law of the
land[footnoteRef:11], the Constitution of India.[footnoteRef:12] It
is a cornerstone of democratic societies. A fair trial is
indispensable for the protection of other rights such as the right
to freedom from torture, the right to life[footnoteRef:13], and the
right to freedom of expression.[footnoteRef:14] [11: S.P. Gupta v.
Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.] [12: T. Nagappa v. Y.R.
Muralidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010.] [13: The Constitution of India,
Article 21.] [14: The Constitution of India, Article 19 (1)
(a).]
The primary aspect which arises for the requirement of right to
fair trial lies in the essence that sometimes innocent may be
condemned for no reason or those who are guilty may not get a fair
trial or may get a higher sentence than they deserved. Amongst such
facet, it is essential to have due process i.e. just, fair and
reasonable[footnoteRef:15] for a fair trial under the criminal law.
Due process of law encompasses not only the right to fair trial,
but also the preservation of public confidence in the
administration of justice. Justice should not only be done but must
be seen to be done[footnoteRef:16]. Therefore, the assurance of a
fair trial by an impartial court is essential for the preservation
of effective system of justice.[footnoteRef:17] [15: Maneka Gandhi
v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.] [16: R. v. Sussex Justices,
(1924) 1 KB 256 (259).] [17: Gisborne Herald Ltd. v. Solicitor
General, (1995) 3 NZLR 563 (CA).]
The rules that ensure protection of fair trial defense,
prosecution, accused, victim and witnesses are laid down in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
However, there has been a rampant abuse of the criminal procedure
during the court trial. Delay in procedure, loss or destruction of
evidence, abuse of power by the executive, use of unlawfully
obtained evidence, prosecutors improper motives, denial of the
rights of victims are some of the concerns raised about the
practice of criminal justice system in India. Moreover, apart from
the national laws, the right to reasonable and fair trial is also a
norm of international human rights law comprising of Article 10 of
the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, 1948[footnoteRef:18],
Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, 1966[footnoteRef:19] (ICCPR signed by India in 1979), as
well as Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950[footnoteRef:20] which
are designed to protect individuals from the unlawful and arbitrary
curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms, the
most prominent of which are the right to life and liberty of the
person. [18: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A
(III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) [hereinafter UDHR].] [19:
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General
Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI), December 16, 1966, entered into
force March 23, 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR].] [20: Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950,
213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR].]
The right to a fair trial on a criminal charge is considered to
start running not only upon the formal lodging of a charge but
rather on the date on which State activities substantially affect
the situation of the person concerned.[footnoteRef:21] In a broader
sense, the diverse aspects which assess the fairness of a trial in
criminal cases scale from the pre-trail rights to the hearing. [21:
Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR
Commentary (N.P. Engel, Arlington: 1993) at 244.]
1. Pre-Trial Rights[1.1] Prohibition on arbitrary arrest and
detention.Rule of Law, the fundamental principle of any legal
system, provides for the supremacy or predominance of law as
opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the
existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide
discretionary authority on the part of the
government.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Supra note VII. ]
Arbitrary arrest by the police authorities is one of major
problem which makes the implementation of rule of law difficult.
The figures released by National Crime Record Bureau reveals the
conviction rate of 25.4% with charge sheeting rate of 83.3% in the
year 2013.[footnoteRef:23] The data indicates that less than 50% of
the accused gets convicted in the court of law and substantially
resembles that arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention is being
practiced heavily in the criminal justice system. Further, where an
act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both
according to political logic and constitutional law and is
therefore in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article
14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness
and equality of treatment. Thus, where the fundamental right of a
citizen is violated, the plea of sovereign immunity would also not
be available.[footnoteRef:24] [23: National Crime Record Bureau,
Figures at a Galnce-2013 (2013) <
http://ncrb.gov.in/index.htm> accessed on 20 January 2015.] [24:
Challa Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 AP 235.]
There had been great outrage amongst the democratic society of
our nation for the exercise of arbitrary power to arrest by the
police authorities under Section 498 A of the
I.P.C.[footnoteRef:25] which provides for the anti dowry law. It
had become a well practiced mechanism by police authorities to
arrest the husband and his relatives on mere lodging of an F.I.R.
under Section 498 A. Finally, citing very low conviction rate in
this area, the Honble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v.
State of Bihar and Another[footnoteRef:26]directed the state
governments to instruct police "not to automatically arrest when a
case under Section 498A is registered but to satisfy themselves
about the necessity for arrest under the parameters (check list)
provided under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. However, the law must provide
expressly, by amending Section 41 and other relevant sections, if
any, that merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence, no
person should be arrested.[footnoteRef:27] [25: The India Penal
Code, 1860, Section 498A : Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.] [26: (2014) 8 SCC
469.] [27: Law Commission of India, Report No. 177 on Law Relating
to Arrest, December 2001. ]
Moreover, Article 22 (1) of the Constitution specifically
provides for protection against arrest and detention in certain
cases. It creates an obligation upon the police officer to
communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the offence
for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest
forthwith. It also corresponds to Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. From
the above cited point of view, the effect of Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India [footnoteRef:28]to practically import the concept of due
process of law from the American Constitution into our
jurisprudence is the necessity of the time. The fact remains that
the procedure established by law which affects the liberty of a
citizen must be reasonable, just and fair and should not be
arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive and that a procedure which does
not satisfy the said test would be in violation of Article 21.
Further, any restriction placed upon a particular fundamental right
need not necessarily be examined only with reference to that right
but must have to answer the other fundamental rights as well if it
infringes on such other rights.[footnoteRef:29] The Cr.P.C.
(relating to arrest) must be examined from the above standpoint.
[28: AIR 1978 SC 597] [29: R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970
SC 564.]
Furthermore, the international cognizance of such rights can be
found in Article 9(1) of ICCPR which provides that No one shall be
subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.Thus, no arrest can be
made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. Arrest
and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable
harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can
be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of
an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police
Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights
of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should
be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some
investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint
and a reasonable belief both as to the persons complicity and even
so as to the need to effect arrest.
[1.2] The prohibition of custodial torture and inhumane
conditions during pre trial detention.Torture is not merely
physical but may even consist of mental or psychological torture
calculated to create fright and submissions to the demands or
commands. The word torture in its denotative concept includes
mental and psychological harassment.[footnoteRef:30] Moreover, it
has become a routine fashion to misuse police for political
purposes. When the threats proceed from a person in authority and
that too by a police officer, the mental torture caused by it is
even graver.[footnoteRef:31] The National Human Rights Commission
in its report for the year 1995-1996 has urged the Government to
take urgent action to separate the investigative wing of the police
from its law and order wing and insulate it from political,
executive and other interference. [footnoteRef:32] [30: Ibid.] [31:
Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1995 SC
117.] [32: Police Reforms in India Seven Steps to Police Reform
14-10-2008, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), accessed
on 21 January 2015.]
Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
would fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution,
whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise.
If the functionaries of the government become law breakers, it is
bound to breed contempt for the law and would encourage lawlessness
and every man would have the tendency to become law unto him
thereby leading to anarchy. [footnoteRef:33] No civilized nation
can permit that to happen, for a citizen does not shed off his
fundamental right to life, the moment police arrests him. The
precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution cannot
be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in
the custody, except according to the procedure established by law
while placing reasonable restrictions as permitted by law. [33:
Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, 2012 8 SCC 1.]
The very idea of a human being in custody saves for protection.
The word custody implies guardianship and protective care. Even
when applied to indicate arrest or incarceration, it does not carry
any sinister symptoms of violation. There is a legal regime set up
in India against such custodial torture and inhumane treatment. It
has been held in a catena of judgments that just because a person
is in police custody or detained or under arrest, does not deprive
him of the fundamental rights and its violation empowers the person
to move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution
of India.[footnoteRef:34] Article 22 provides four basic
fundamental rights. These include being informed of the grounds of
arrest, to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice,
preventive detention laws and production before the nearest
Magistrate within 24 hrs of arrest of the person. Moreover, Section
25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a confession to
police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any
offence and confession caused by threats from a person in authority
in order to avoid any evil of a temporal nature would be irrelevant
in criminal proceedings as, inter alia, provided in Section 24.
Thus, the evidences collected by means of torturous act are
rendered illegal and inadmissible in the court of law. [34: N. V.
Paranjape, Criminology and Penology with Victimology (6th edition,
Central Law Publishing, 2014).]
Further, Section 46 and 49 of the Cr.P.C. protect those under
custody from torture who are not accused of an offence punishable
with death sentence or life imprisonment. Sections 50-56 of the
Cr.P.C. are in consonance with Article 22. Section 54 of the
Cr.P.C. is a provision that corresponds to any infliction of
custodial torture and violence. According to it, when an allegation
of ill treatment is made by a person in custody, the Magistrate is
then and there required to examine his body and shall place on
record the result of his examination and reasons
thereof.[footnoteRef:35] It gives them the right to bring to the
courts notice any torture or inhumane treatment they might have
been subjected to and have themselves examined by a medical
practitioner on their own request.[footnoteRef:36] A compensatory
mechanism has also been used by the courts.[footnoteRef:37] When
the Magistrate does not follow procedure with respect to
entertaining complaint of custodial torture, it calls for
interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C.[footnoteRef:38] [35: A.K. Sahdev v. Ramesh Nanji Shah, 1998
Cri.L.J. 2645.] [36: Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasanttraghunath
Dhoble,2004 (1) GCD 812.] [37: J.Y. V Chandrachud & V.R.
Manohar, The Code of Criminal Procedure,(18th edition, LexisNexis
Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2006).] [38: Mukesh Kumar v. State,
1990 Cr. L.J. 1923.]
Further, Article 7 of the ICCPR (ratified by 153 countries)
prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
Punishment and is a norm of customary international law that also
belongs to the category of jus cogens.[footnoteRef:39] Article 5 of
the UDHR also puts ban on torture and other ill treatment. Apart
from these, Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans
violence of life and person, in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" as well as "outrages upon
personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment. The use of force to obtain information is specifically
prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. [39:
Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th edition, jus cogens: A mandatory or
peremptory norm of general international law accepted and
recognized by the international community as a norm from which no
derogation is permitted.]
Thus, the accused might agitate to ameliorate the cause of the
poor and the downtrodden, but, the social humiliation that is meted
out to him is quite capable of destroying the heart of his
philosophy. Torture withers away the very essence of life as
enshrined under Article 21. 2. The Hearing[2.1] Right to a fair
hearing.The single most important criterion in evaluating the
fairness of a trial is the observance of the principle of equality
of arms between the defense and the prosecution. Equality of arms,
which must be observed throughout the trial, means that both
parties are treated in a manner ensuring their procedurally equal
position during the course of a trial. It would be difficult to
identify in advance all of the situations that could constitute
violations of this principle. They might range from denying the
accused and/or counsel time to prepare a defense to excluding the
accused and/or counsel from an appellate hearing when the
prosecutor is present.The very core principle of natural
justice[footnoteRef:40] warrants that the adjudicatory process has
to be in consonance with the doctrine of audi alteram
partem[footnoteRef:41] which means that no one should be condemned
unheard. The principle goes back to many centuries in our law and
appears in a multitude of judgments of judges of the highest
authority of various countries. The Honble Supreme Court of India
did not lag behind in its progressive approach to this rule. In
Seimens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v.
Union of India and another[footnoteRef:42], the apex court was of
the view that the rule of audi alteram partem must be observed in
its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not
satisfy the requirement of law. Further, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India[footnoteRef:43]no opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner before taking the impugned action. The Supreme Court
held that it was violation of audi alteram partem. In the case of
failure of natural justice, the court will quash the order and
ordinarily remit the matter to the concerned body to decide it
again after a fresh hearing.[footnoteRef:44] [40: Kandav.Government
of Malaya, [1962] A.C. 322 at 337.] [41: Manohar v. State of
Maharashtra and Another, 2012 (13) SCC 14.] [42: AIR 1976 SC 1785]
[43: Supra Note XXIX. ] [44: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills
Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income Tax,AIR 1955 SC 65;Shivji
Nathubhaiv.Union of India,AIR 1960 SC 606.]
Thus, the question is whether the persons in custody are the
real culprits. This has to be established by the prosecution beyond
the reasonable doubt and thus, without availing the equal
opportunity to be heard for both the sides, it is just impossible
to ascertain.[2.2] Right to a presumption of innocence.One of the
basic tenets of our legal system is the benefit of the presumption
of innocence to the accused till he is found guilty at the end of a
trial on legal evidences. Even the rights of the accused are
sacrosanct in a democratic society. Recently in 2012, in Pathan
Hussain Basha v. State of A.P.[footnoteRef:45], the apex court was
of the view that Article 20 of theConstitution of Indiacontains a
presumption of innocence in favor of a suspect and that the concept
of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence.
Further, in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana,[footnoteRef:46]the
court held that the concept of presumption of innocence is so
deeply ingrained in all Common Law legal systems so as to render it
ineradicable even in India, such that the departure or deviation
from this presumption demands statutory sanction. [45: (2012) 8 SCC
594] [46: AIR 2015 SC 15]
Further, even International Law bestows its imprimatur thereto.
Article 11 (1) of the UDHR states "Everyone charged with a penal
offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the
guarantees necessary for his defense." Article 14(3)(g) of the
ICCPR, assures as a minimum guarantee that everyone has a right not
to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
Article 6 of the ECHR firstly, promises the right to a fair trial
and secondly, assures that anyone charged with a criminal offence
shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Thus, the presumption of innocence has been recognized so as to
constitute a basic human right.[2.3] Right to SilenceThe Right to
Silence is a principle of common law and it means that normally
courts or tribunals of fact should not be invited or encouraged to
conclude, by parties or prosecutors, that a suspect or an accused
is guilty merely because he has refused to respond to questions put
to him by the police or by the court. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar
v. State of Bihar and Another[footnoteRef:47], it was held that if
a person does not offer any explanation itself may not be
sufficient to conclusively hold that he was guilty of commission of
the offence, but the legal position is that the same would be
considered to be his Right to Silence. [47: (2007) 10 SCC 433]
Further, the Constitution guarantees every person right against
self incrimination under Article 20(3) which provides that No
person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself. The Right to Silence has been further guaranteed
in Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani[footnoteRef:48]that no one can
forcibly extract statements from the accused that has the right to
keep silent during the course of interrogation. Again in Smt. Selvi
& ors. v. State of Karnataka[footnoteRef:49], the Supreme Court
declared narco analysis, brain mapping and lie detector test as a
violation of Article 20(3). [48: AIR 1978 SC 1025] [49: (2010) 7
SCC 263]
[2.4] Right to Speedy Trial.Speedy justice is the sine qua non
of criminal jurisprudence. The Right to Speedy Trial is a part of
just and reasonable procedure implicit under Article 21 of the
Constitution.[footnoteRef:50] This right has been actuated in the
recent past and the courts in a recent series of decisions opened
new vistas of fundamental rights.[footnoteRef:51] A procedure which
keeps such large numbers of people behind bars without trial so
long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as
to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21 of the
Constitution. The law enacted by the legislature and as
administered by the courts must radically change its approach to
pre-trial detention and ensure reasonable, just and fair
procedure.[footnoteRef:52] [50: A.R. Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, (1992) 1
SCC 225.] [51: Law Commission of India, Report No. 154 (August
1996).] [52: Hussianara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State
of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. ]
[2.5] Right to Free Legal Aid.Opportunities for securing justice
are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.[footnoteRef:53] It is a constitutional mandate under
Article 21 to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person
and the obligation does not arise only when the trial commences but
also attaches when the accused is for the first time produced
before the magistrate, as also when remanded from time to time. The
Supreme Court cast a duty on all magistrates and courts to inform
the indigent accused about his right to get free legal
aid.[footnoteRef:54] [53: Law Weekly, Legal Aid in Our State,
(1978) 91 LW (JS) 93.] [54: Suk Das & Anr. v. U.T. of A.P., AIR
1986 SC 991.]
Further, Article 39A of the Constitution confers a
constitutional right to every accused person who is unable to
engage lawyer and secure free legal services on account of reasons
such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado
situation.[footnoteRef:55] [55: Rajoo v. State of M.P., (2012) 8
SCC 553.]
ConclusionIn the aforementioned background, the treatment of the
accused of a crime provides a concrete demonstration of how far
State is committed to respect the human rights. The right to fair
trial is not limited to specific procedure. It is a comprehensive
right demanding a due process in procedural law. It includes an
adversarial trial system, presumption of innocence, independent
judges, and knowledge of the accusation, trail and evidence in the
presence of the accused, adequate legal representation to respond
to the charges, prohibition of double jeopardy, right to remain
silent, right to be notified of the charged and so on. Recently in
2014, the World Justice Project released the Rule of Law Index 2014
report, which analyzed the extent to which countries adhere to the
rule of law in practice.Out of the 99 countries that were compared,
India ranked 66th globally.[footnoteRef:56] This suggests that
despite of having myriad of detailed provisions to shield human
rights, resistance developed by law enforcement agencies against
them has made those rights and provisions unrealistic. [56: World
Justice Project Report, Rule of Law Index 2014, <
http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/> accessed on
22 January 2015.]
Further, the quality of a nations civilization can be largely
measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal
law.[footnoteRef:57] Thus, the guidelines issued by the Supreme
Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of
U.P.[footnoteRef:58]and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal
[footnoteRef:59] should be incorporated in the code so as to keep
the check against arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions. Till
then, the reformative approach in criminal justice system of India
remains a distant sight. [57: Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR
1994 SC 1349.] [58: Ibid.] [59: AIR 1997 SC 610]
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books1. Albert V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law
of the Constitution (10th edition, Oxford University Press,
1885).2. Daniel Moeckli & Sangeeta Shah, International Human
Rights Law (2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2014).3. Ian
Brownlie & Guy S Goodwin-Gill, Brownlies Documents on Human
Rights (6th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010).4. M.P. Jain,
Indian Constitutional Law (7th edition, LexisNexis, 2014).5. N. V.
Paranjape, Criminology & Penology with Victimology (6th
edition, Central Law Publishing, 2014).6. Nicholas Vincent, Magna
Carta: A very Short Introduction (1st edition, Oxford University
Press, 2012).7. Richard Clayton & Hugh Tomlinson, Fair Trial
Rights (1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2001).
Statutes1. The Constitution of India, 1950.2. The Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973.3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.4. The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.5. The Statute of the International Criminal
Court, 1998.
International Conventions1. European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.2. Fourth
Geneva Convention, 1949.3. International Convention for Civil and
Political Rights, 1976.4. The Convention against Torture and other
Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984. 5.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.
Internet Documents1. 154th Report of Law Commission of India on
the Code of Criminal Procedure published in 1996.2. 177th Report of
Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest published in
2001.3. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report on Police
Reforms in India - Seven Steps to Police Reform published in 2008,
4. National Crime Record Bureau Report on Figures at a Galnce-2013
published in 2014. 5. World Justice Project Report on the rule of
law index 2014 published in 2014.
Page 2 of 14