Right to Fair Trial: Meaning, Principles and Landmark Cases
INTRODUCTION
The meaning of fair trial which finds place in
criminal jurisprudence connotes transparent and impartial hearing in the Court
of law particularly for the right of the accused person because of the saying
that accused person is innocent until found guilty.
Fair
trial is a fundamental right of a person accused in a crime to be represented
by legal counsel of his choice in order to defend him according procedure
established by law.
The
concept of fair trial was originated from Anglo-Saxon laws and Magna Carta, a
Charter which was signed by King John of England establishing a critical check
against arbitrary power in the justice system. The charter marked the beginning
of civil liberties and rule of law and check against arbitrary law. The Charter
also gave men right to fair trial.
CONCEPT
The definition of fair trial entails familiar triangulation
of interests of the accused, the victim and society and it is the community that
acts through the State and prosecuting agencies
Basically, trial which is fair and reasonable
before an impartial judge is called fair trial and it should be available to
all the citizen irrespective of caste, creed and status. International law has
mandated to treat fair trial as fundamental right for all the person who are in
custody and for those who are in need of justice.
PRINCIPLES
OF FAIR TRIAL
Here are the key principles of fair trial by which the right to fair to
trial to the accused and victim can be achieved efficaciously.
i) Presumption of innocence, b)
Independent and impartial judiciary, c) Right to know the acusation, d) Right
to counsel, e) Speedy trial, f) Protection against double jeopardy.
INTERNATIONAL
LAW ON FAIR TRIAL
In the International scenario the right to
fair trial is human right and find mention in the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights in Article 10. The Article guarantees that everyone is
entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations of any
criminal charge against him.
Article 14 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights guarantees the right to equality before
courts and tribunals ensuring a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent
and impartial tribunal established by law.
Negating
press, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights says the press and the public may be excluded from all or parts of
a trial for reasons of moral, public order or national security in a democratic
society (like India), or when the interest of private lives of the parties
requires to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the Court in
special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Some of the criteria that require to be fulfilled
as envisaged under Article 14 are :–
1. Everyone
charged with criminal offence should be presumed innocent until proven guilty
according to law.
2. Everyone
shall be entitled to be informed promptly in detail in a language which he
understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him.
3. to
have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to
communicate with counsel of his own choosing.
4. to
be tried without undue delay.
5. to
be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his choosing; to be informed if his does not have legal
assistance of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him in the
interest of justice so require and without payment by him in any such case if
he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.
6. to
examine, or to have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions
and witnesses against him.
7. To
have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the
language used in Court.
8. Not
to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
INDIAN
LAW ON FAIR TRIAL AND LANDMARK CASES
In
Indian scenario, fair trial is given utmost importance so much so that
legislature left no stone unturned for guaranteeing the right of the accused
person by framing and incorporating various provisions. Part III of the
Constitution of India which contains Fundamental Rights
is called the ‘Magna Carta of India’ because it is a
foundational document that contains the right of every citizens and non citizen
too.
The
principle of right to fair trial contains in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India. It says no person shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty
except according to procedure established by law.
Through various judicial decision of the Supreme
Court, right under Article 21, was widened to include right to fair trial,
speedy trial and was set as precedent.
Article
21 of the Constitution of India ensures the right of the accused to have
impartial, speedy and open proceedings guaranteeing legal representation and
presumption of innocent.
The
Supreme Court observed – the concept of fair trial flows directly from Article
21 of the Constitution of India [Moti Lal Saraf vs Union of India (2007)].
The
main aim for incorporating provisions for fair trial in the criminal laws is to
ensure fair and impartial trial of accused person. The provisions ensure that
no one is denied right to fair and impartial trial. As time passed, with the
changing circumstances, right to fair trial extended to right to speedy trial,
right to free legal aid, protection to the witnesses and victims
SPEEDY
TRIAL
The case of Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of
India (AIR 1978) highlighted the word ‘Fundamental Right’ in wider
meaning. It not only widened the meaning of personal liberty as ruled in the
case of A.K. Gopalan vs Union of India (1950) but also
overruled it to cover variety of rights that constitute personal liberty.
In
another landmark case, Hussainara Khatoon and others vs. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar (AIR 1979), the Supreme
Court recognised right to speedy trial as fundamental right implicit
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Court said speedy trial is an
essence of criminal justice. The Court then held that in United States speedy
trial is one of the constitutionally guaranteed right, but unlike American
Constitution, speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as fundamental right,
it is implicit in broad content of Article 21 as interpreted in Maneka
Gandhi’s case.
RIGHT
TO FREE LEGAL AID
The provision for right to free legal aid was
inserted under Article 39A by 42nd Amendment of the
Constitution of India in 1976. The amendment is called as “India’s Mini
Constitution” because of its controversial vast changes. It changed the face of
Constitution because of addition “Socialist, Secular and integrity”.
Article 39A directs the State to ensure
that operation of legal system promote justice, in particular to provide free
legal aid to economically weaker person.
The
right to free legal aid as a fundamental right of every citizen established in
the judgment of M.H Haskot vs. State of Maharashtra (1978) by
applying the ruling of Maneka Gandhi’s Case.
The judgment of the Supreme Court in M.H.
Haskot vs. State of Maharashtra(1978) is a landmark for reason that it
established the right to free legal aid and as an essential ingredient of fair,
just and reasonable procedure under Article 21 of the Constitution. It requires
the State to provide free legal aid to economically weaker section those in
custody
Also Read: Last Seen Theory
PROTECTION OF
WITNESSES AND VICTIMS
The right to fair
trial as fundamental right under Article 21 also include protection of
witnesses and victims as held in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State
of Gujarat (2004) [Best Bakery case] so that justice is
provided and not subverted by threats and bias.
If the witnesses get threatened or are forced to give false evidence that aslo would not result in a fair trial. The failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial - Supreme Court said.
Recently, the Supreme Court, in Dashwanth vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2025), held that the constitutional right afforded
to an accused charged with an offence to defend himself is not illusory or
imaginary. For the trial to be fair and reasonable, an effective opportunity to
defend must be provided to the accused and representation by a counsel of
choice is an important component of this guarantee. In a case where accused is
facing charges for offences which carry capital punishment, this constitutional
mandate becomes even more sacrosanct, and it is the duty of the Court as well as
the State to ensure that the accused is not prejudiced or deprived of a fair
opportunity of defending himself in a case where he may be awarded death
penalty.
As held in Dashwant's case gave
requirements for the purpose of opportunity of fair trial. Such
opportunity unquestionably require: -
(a)
Providing copies of all relied upon documents to the accused immediately on
submission of report under Section 173(2) CrPC (Section 193 BNSS)/committal of
case under Section 209 CrPC (Section 232 BNSS).
(b)
Ensuring that the accused is represented by a lawyer of his own choice and in
case, he/she is not in a position to engage a private counsel then, a legal aid
defence counsel having requisite experience must be appointed to represent him
at the trial. As has been laid down by this Court in Anokhilal v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (2019), in capital
punishment offences, a legal aid defence counsel so appointed should preferably
have an experience of 10 years at the bar.
(c)
The legal aid counsel so appointed should be given sufficient opportunity to go
through the record and prepare the matter for carrying out effective
cross-examination from the witnesses.
(d)
The Court should not act as a mute spectator during recording of evidence, as
provided under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 168 of
the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). The Court must remain
vigilant, and in case any important question necessary to arrive at a just
decision of the case is omitted to be put to the witnesses either by the
defence counsel or the public prosecutor, the Court must not let such lacuna
creep into the proceedings, and it must be ensured that Court put questions to
the witnesses for ensuring fairness in the proceedings.
CONCLUSION
In
conclusion, fair trial is an essential ingredient for natural justice system
imparting equality to all men alike. The duty to ensure that all persons in
need of justice are availed the right to fair trial is cast upon Courts and the
State/District Authority, through various decisions of the Supreme Court.
0 Comments