Fundamental Rights And Criminal Law
Fundamental Rights in the Indian Constitution guarantee certain freedoms and protections to all individuals, many of which have a direct impact on criminal law and the administration of justice. The interaction between fundamental rights and criminal law ensures that the state does not arbitrarily deprive a person of liberty or impose punishment without following due process.
Key Fundamental Rights Relevant to Criminal Law:
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
No person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Encompasses the right to fair trial, protection from arbitrary arrest, and humane treatment during detention.
Article 22: Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest and Detention
Guarantees the right to be informed of grounds of arrest.
Right to consult a legal practitioner.
Right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours.
Article 20: Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offenses
No retrospective punishment.
Protection against double jeopardy.
Protection against self-incrimination.
Article 14: Right to Equality Before Law
Ensures equality and non-arbitrariness in criminal proceedings.
Landmark Cases Explaining Fundamental Rights in Criminal Law
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978 AIR 597)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government without providing a hearing or reason.
Issue: Whether the action violated Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty).
Judgment: The Supreme Court expanded the interpretation of Article 21, holding that any procedure depriving liberty must be “fair, just and reasonable.” This ruled out arbitrary or unfair procedures in criminal and quasi-criminal matters.
Significance: This case revolutionized the concept of due process in India, extending fundamental rights protection in criminal law to include procedural fairness and natural justice.
2. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569
Facts: The petitioner was charged under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and claimed violation of fundamental rights.
Issue: Whether the provisions of TADA violated fundamental rights, especially Articles 14, 21, and 22.
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the law but insisted on procedural safeguards. It held that laws in criminal matters must respect fundamental rights, especially the right to be informed, fair trial, and protection from arbitrary detention.
Significance: It emphasized the need to balance public order with fundamental rights in criminal jurisprudence.
3. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997 AIR 610)
Facts: Allegations of custodial deaths and police torture were brought before the court.
Issue: What safeguards must police follow to protect fundamental rights of detainees under Article 21.
Judgment: The Supreme Court issued detailed guidelines for arrest and detention, including police identification, medical examination, and informing relatives.
Significance: This case linked fundamental rights to police accountability, ensuring protection from torture and custodial violence during criminal investigations.
4. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010 AIR SCW 1972)
Facts: The use of narco-analysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused persons without consent.
Issue: Whether such tests violate the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis and similar tests violate Article 20(3) and Article 21.
Significance: This reinforced the protection of fundamental rights in criminal procedures, emphasizing consent and protection from forced self-incrimination.
5. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986 AIR 1773)
Facts: The case focused on the rights of undertrial prisoners and prison conditions.
Issue: Whether prison authorities were violating the fundamental rights of prisoners under Article 21.
Judgment: The Supreme Court recognized the human rights of prisoners, emphasizing that imprisonment should not mean loss of dignity or basic human rights.
Significance: It established that fundamental rights apply even during detention, impacting prison reforms and humane treatment in criminal law.
Summary
Fundamental Rights act as a safeguard in criminal law to protect individuals from arbitrary actions by the state.
Article 21 guarantees procedural fairness, humane treatment, and protection from arbitrary detention.
Article 22 provides specific safeguards related to arrest and detention.
Article 20 protects accused from retrospective laws, double jeopardy, and forced self-incrimination.
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in interpreting these rights expansively to ensure justice in criminal proceedings.
These cases collectively form the backbone of constitutional criminal jurisprudence in India, ensuring that the criminal justice system respects and upholds fundamental rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments