TITLE OF THE ESSAY

PROTECTION OF FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL CASES

DETAILS OF AUTHOR
NAME Jubair Bhati
COURSE & YEAR OF STUDY - B.B.A. LL.B. [II Year - IV Semester]
ADDRESS School of Law, Raffles University, Japanese Zone, National Highway-8, Neemrana301705, District-Alwar, Rajasthan
E-MAIL-ID jubair.bhati@gmail.com
CONTACT NUMBER +91-8875296213
NAME

& 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 CASES

Keywords: Human Rights, Magna Carta, UDHR, Fair Trial, Rule of law, Natural Justice

Abstract:
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:

Page 2 of 16

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.I
It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffers. II This is because the consequences of
convicting an innocent person are so significantly serious that its reverberations are felt
throughout a civilized society.III For example, the sentence served by an innocent person cannot
be erased by any subsequent act of annulment. IV 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.
The all-embracing principle of equality before the lawV 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.VI 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 lawVII in order to comply with the basic
structure of the Constitution of IndiaVIII. Moreover, the concept of rule of law would lose its
I The Law of the Land clause of Magna Carta, 1215.
II Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785.
III Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR SC 2773.
IV Ibid., paragraph 28.
V The Constitution of India, Article 14.
VI Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249.
VII Albert V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edition,
Oxford University Press, 1885).
Page 3 of 16

vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their
function in a fair and just manner.IX
The Right to Fair Trial flows from broader fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21
of, the fundamental law of the land X, the Constitution of India.XI 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 lifeXII, and the right to freedom of expression.XIII
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 reasonableXIV 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 XV.
Therefore, the assurance of a fair trial by an impartial court is essential for the preservation of
effective system of justice.XVI

VIII His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1973
SC 1461.
IX A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.
X S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.
XI T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010.
XII The Constitution of India, Article 21.
XIII The Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (a).
XIV Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
XV R. v. Sussex Justices, (1924) 1 KB 256 (259).
XVI Gisborne Herald Ltd. v. Solicitor General, (1995) 3 NZLR 563 (CA).
Page 4 of 16

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 Human
Rights, 1948XVII, Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 XVIII
(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 XIX 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.
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.XX 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.
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
XVII Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) [hereinafter
UDHR].

XVIII International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General Assembly resolution
2200A (XXI), December 16, 1966, entered into force March 23, 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR].
XIX Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950,
213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR].
XX Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary (N.P.
Engel, Arlington: 1993) at 244.
Page 5 of 16

of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the

government.XXI
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. XXII 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.XXIII
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. XXIV 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 AnotherXXVdirected 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.
XXI Supra note VII.
XXII National Crime Record Bureau, Figures at a Galnce-2013 (2013) <
http://ncrb.gov.in/index.htm> accessed on 20 January 2015.
XXIII Challa Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 AP 235.
XXIV 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.
XXV (2014) 8 SCC 469.
Page 6 of 16

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.XXVI
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

XXVII

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. XXVIII The Cr.P.C. (relating to arrest)
must be examined from the above standpoint.
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 selfesteem 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.

XXVI Law Commission of India, Report No. 177 on Law Relating to Arrest, December 2001.
XXVII AIR 1978 SC 597
XXVIII R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.
Page 7 of 16

[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.XXIX 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.XXX 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. XXXI
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.

XXXII

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.
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
XXIX Ibid.
XXX Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1995 SC 117.
XXXI Police Reforms in India Seven Steps to Police Reform 14-10-2008, Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), <www.humanrightsinitiative.org> accessed on 21 January
2015.
XXXII Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, 2012 8 SCC 1.
Page 8 of 16

fundamental rights and its violation empowers the person to move to the Supreme Court under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India. XXXIII 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.
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 5056 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.XXXIV 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.XXXV A compensatory mechanism has also been used by the
courts.XXXVI 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.XXXVII

XXXIII N. V. Paranjape, Criminology and Penology with Victimology (6th edition, Central Law
Publishing, 2014).
XXXIV A.K. Sahdev v. Ramesh Nanji Shah, 1998 Cri.L.J. 2645.
XXXV Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasanttraghunath Dhoble,2004 (1) GCD 812.
XXXVI J.Y. V Chandrachud & V.R. Manohar, The Code of Criminal Procedure,(18th edition,
LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2006).
Page 9 of 16

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.XXXVIII 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.
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 justiceXXXIX warrants that the adjudicatory process has to be in
consonance with the doctrine of audi alteram partemXL which means that no one should be
condemned unheard. The principle goes back to many centuries in our law and appears in a
XXXVII Mukesh Kumar v. State, 1990 Cr. L.J. 1923.
XXXVIII 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.

XXXIX Kanda v. Government of Malaya, [1962] A.C. 322 at 337.

XL Manohar v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2012 (13) SCC 14.
Page 10 of 16

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 XLI, 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 IndiaXLIIno 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.XLIII
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.XLIV, the apex court was of the view that Article 20 of the Constitution of
India contains 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,XLVthe 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.
XLI AIR 1976 SC 1785
XLII Supra Note XXIX.
XLIII Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, AIR 1955 SC 65; Shivji
Nathubhai v. Union of India, AIR 1960 SC 606.
XLIV (2012) 8 SCC 594
XLV AIR 2015 SC 15
Page 11 of 16

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 Silence
The 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 AnotherXLVI, 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.
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.
DaniXLVIIthat 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 XLVIII, the
Supreme Court declared narco analysis, brain mapping and lie detector test as a violation of
Article 20(3).
[2.4] Right to Speedy Trial.

XLVI (2007) 10 SCC 433

XLVII AIR 1978 SC 1025
XLVIII (2010) 7 SCC 263
Page 12 of 16

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. XLIX This right has
been actuated in the recent past and the courts in a recent series of decisions opened new vistas
of fundamental rights.L 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.LI
[2.5] Right to Free Legal Aid.
Opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.LII 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.LIII
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.LIV

XLIX A.R. Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225.

L Law Commission of India, Report No. 154 (August 1996).
LI Hussianara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81.
LIILaw Weekly, Legal Aid in Our State, (1978) 91 LW (JS) 93.
LIII Suk Das & Anr. v. U.T. of A.P., AIR 1986 SC 991.
LIVRajoo v. State of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 553.
Page 13 of 16

CONCLUSION
In 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.LV 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.

Further, the quality of a nations civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in
the enforcement of criminal law.LVI Thus, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case
of Joginder Singh v. State of U.P.LVIIand D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal

LVIII

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.

LV World Justice Project Report, Rule of Law Index 2014, < http://worldjusticeproject.org/ruleof-law-index/> accessed on 22 January 2015.
LVI Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349.
LVII Ibid.
LVIII AIR 1997 SC 610
Page 14 of 16

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1. 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).

STATUTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

The Constitution of India, 1950.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.

INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
1. 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.

Page 15 of 16

4. The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, 1984.
5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

INTERNET DOCUMENTS
1. 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 16 of 16