Presumption of innocence
By:
Alok Bagri
Introduction
In these times, when India is seeing a severe increase in crime, particularly heinous crimessuch as rape, the government has felt the need to adopt a more deterrent approach to justicedelivery. But does justice come at the expense of one's fundamental human rights?Legislators have lately proposed clauses that place the accused on a pedestal and require himto establish his innocence in order to be released, rather than the prosecution dismissing the proof. Certain fundamentals in the criminal justice system, however, must never be neglected.They will only lead to a miscarriage of justice if they are ignored. One such premise is the presumption of innocence.I will attempt to investigate legislative provisions regarding the burden of proof and itsreversals in criminal offences, as well as analyze the rationale for such rules in light of thesignificance of the presumption of innocence. Also important is the rise and significantdemand for including human rights in criminal proceedings. This article contends thatinternational human rights concepts are particularly relevant to the interpretation of reverse burdens, and that stronger requirements must be met before a reverse burden may be justified.Addressing the existing arbitrariness of legislative reversal of the onus of proof would be acritical step forward in that direction if India is to build a human rights-based approach tocriminal justice.
What is presumption of innocence?
Justice is never incompatible with rights. Justice is founded on the anvil of equal rights andobligations; so, in a criminal trial, the rights of all sides must be balanced in order toaccomplish the goals of justice. Being careless or prejudiced in favour of anyone's right willresult in a miscarriage of justice. The right of a defendant/convict/accused to be assumedinnocent unless proven guilty is a basic component of our criminal justice system. Thoughnot officially codified in the Indian penal code, there are laws that operate on this premise.Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provide that anybody seeking a court'sdecision on a legal right or responsibility must show the existence of the facts asserted. As aresult, the burden of establishing fact is always on the one who declares it. However, manyrules and statutory restrictions weaken this concept by shifting the burden of proof to theaccused rather than the prosecution. The common law maxim, “
ei incumbit probatio quidicit, non qui negat “(the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one whodenies)
was confirmed by the Supreme Court
,
burden of proof lies on the party asserting itand never on the party denying it. The idea of presumption of innocence states that an individual is always presumed to be"innocent unless proven guilty." This was initially spelled down by jurist Blackstone, whostated that it is preferable to let ten criminal people go free than to allow one innocent personsuffer. In the historic decision of Woolmington vs Dpp, the House of Lords ruled that the presumption of innocent is the golden thread of criminal law and cannot be endangered. The
Indian Supreme Court passionately upheld this, and it is now a well-established concept of Indian jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence does not have the same effect as other criminal law presumptions. Unlike other presumptions, the presumption of innocence doesnot deal with the burden of proof. There is no burden relieved from the defendant per se. As aresult, the presumption of innocence has no effect on shifting the burden of proof to the prosecution. Rather, the prosecution bears the initial burden. As a result, the defendant'sstatus quo is preserved under the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court concluded in the case of Noor Aga Khan vs. State of Punjab that, whilenot specifically specified in the constitution, presumption of innocence provides a powerful background to the notion of justice, in ensuring faith in the long-term integrity and security of a judicial system.
What is the need and importance of presumption of innocence?
In the contemporary day, convictions are evading the basic foundations of human rightsstandards by condemning people based on mere suspicion rather than facts. Any country'scriminal justice system reflects how the society runs. The state's criminal justice system hasfar-reaching consequences since it demonstrates the country's liberal and democraticapproach to dealing with the weak. Such abilities cannot go unchecked in the world's greatestdemocracy and must be exercised with caution. Thus, the presumption of innocence servesnot just as a right but also as a guideline for how the state should use its coercive powers.Putting innocent people through the rigours of criminal law is an affront to the fundamental principles of democracy and fairness. The court has also considered the issue of resources, asnot all parties have equal resources and cannot prove their innocence while the proceedingsare ongoing. Conviction for a criminal offence usually results in some type of punishment being imposed on the offender. Such consequences invariably infringe on basic rights, suchas the right to personal property (fines), the right to liberty (imprisonment), and the right to privacy (community sentence, imprisonment). Furthermore, a guilty person is subjected to possibly severe mental horrors as a consequence of public reactions, as well as physicaltortures as a result of the harsh circumstances of the jail cells. If the State is to limit an individual's basic rights, every conviction must be the outcome of afair trial. It is a corollary of the right to liberty and promotes other rights such as the right toquiet. The presumption of innocence is also important in balancing the State's greater authority and means against those of ordinary persons. Trials are fact-finding settings, not places for mistakes or disasters. Most critically, the presumption of innocence protects anindividual's right not to be wrongly convicted. The accused is being forced to establish hisinnocence and reject a presumption of guilt. A reverse onus clause is not justified by a balance of probability criterion since the duty on the accused is ultimate, meaning that failureto meet this burden would end in his conviction. Such a system appears to be excessivelyoppressive and harsh on the accused. In criminal law, the burden of proof plays a significantrole in the trial phase. It aids in the conduct of a free and fair trial by keeping both sides onthe same playing field. When the burden of proof is placed on the incorrect party, it taints thecourt's decision and eventually leads to a miscarriage of justice. It is important to emphasize that the rules governing the burden of proof and the standard of proof in criminal trials are essential because they preserve individual freedom and serve as a barrier against oppression. Reversing the burden of evidence makes the accused a presumed
criminal, neglecting his individual liberty and dignity and so breaching Article 21, whichgrants an individual the right to live in dignity. Wrongful convictions deprive an individual of his or her dignity and respect in society.The right to a fair trial is a collection of rights, the most important of which is the right to the presumption of innocent. The presumption of innocence serves as the foundation for adefendant's right to stay silent and enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination. The right tosilence is a procedural safeguard meant to shield citizens from the use of coercivegovernmental authority. It is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence in our nation thatit is for the prosecution, and only the prosecution, to establish all of the elements of theoffence with which the accused has been charged. The accused is not required to open hismouth or engage into his defence until the prosecution has discharged its task andconvincingly shown the accused's guilt.It is also proposed that a fair trial would be one in which bias or prejudice for or against theaccused is eradicated. Erroneous convictions harm the public interest; the guilty may just beunlucky enough to satisfy the rigorous criteria of the standard of proof. If the courts alreadythink that the individual on trial is guilty, the trial will be based on prejudices rather thanevidence.
International obligation and standpoints.
Today, India is growing its worldwide footprint. In such a circumstance, the need to obey,and not only follow, the fundamental principles of human rights become an urgent necessity.We cannot stand strong only by raising our economic standards; we must stand even stronger while providing human rights to our inhabitants.Human rights moral concept seeks to define the essential criteria for each human being tohave a minimum good existence. Human rights seek to define both the negative and positivecriteria for living a minimum good life, such as the right to health care and the right not to betortured. This aspiration has been enshrined in various declarations and legal conventionsissued over the last fifty years, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(1948) and continuing, most notably, with the European Convention on Human Rights (1954)and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). These three articles,taken together, constitute the centerpiece of a moral system that many believe is capable of supplying the modern geopolitical order with what amounts to an international bill of rights.Human rights are defined as rights to life, liberty, equality, and dignity provided by theconstitution or enshrined in international accords as enforced by courts. In defining the ideaof human rights, the courts have therefore given the broadest possible reach.The presumption of innocence is a human right that cannot be waived under anycircumstance. Articles 6 (Right to Recognition Before the Law), 7 (Equality Before the Law),10 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 11(2) (Right to Presumption of Innocence) of the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights raise even more serious issues for the accused in the currentinstance. Because they are vital to human life not just on a national level, but also on aninternational scale. Furthermore, the concerned rights under the ICCPR include Article 9(Right against arbitrary trial and imprisonment) and Article 14 (Presumption of innocence for the accused and right to a fair trial). It has already been established that conventions that arein accordance with the constitution might be regarded to be incorporated by the state.
Henceforth, while sticking to local law, courts may also consider the international framework in order to limit violations of rights to the greatest extent possible.
Are media trials suppressing presumption of innocence?
“Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day it is not onlydesirable but the least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, toensure that the trial by the media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in anymanner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of injustice if either of this causes impedimentsin the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial. Presumption of innocence of anaccused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will beopposed to the basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to anaccused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is essential for the dignity of thecourts and is one of the cardinal principles of the rule of law in democratic society that thecriticism or even the reporting particularly in sub judice matters must be subjected to check and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.”
The freedom of the press is essential for a democratic system since it serves the public's viewwithout prejudice. The basic goal of the media is to help people by disseminating accurateinformation on issues of public interest. A free media serves as a watchdog for thegovernment and is the only avenue through which people may communicate with thegovernment. The media has a clear impact on people's thinking and may shape their judgments. It may establish and pursue a national agenda. The media has such a powerfulinfluence on society that it must never lose sight of its duties and commitments to people. Asa result, they are required to follow ethical norms in order to ensure the validity of the newsand objective yet acceptable reporting. They are also obligated to consider the impact of their reporting on society and the individuals or institutions involved, as the case may be. Rather of conducting trials, the media should be objective in disseminating information to society. The problem peaks when there has been substantial media coverage of the subjects under consideration. The facts and comments broadcast by the media appear to harm the interests of the parties in a matter that is now ongoing in court. As a public service, the media is expectedto operate as a watchdog for society, whereas the judiciary is expected to protect citizens'rights. Both the judiciary and the media are critical to the advancement of civil society, and their roles should be distinct. However, in recent years, the media has begun intervening in judicial proceedings and has pioneered the notion of investigative journalism in order to shape publicopinion. As a result, the subject of Media Trial is important and must be addressed. Pressfreedom should not be abused to the detriment of individuals or society as a whole. Becausefreedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is not unlimited, the media should be held accountable for their actions and freedom.
Conclusion
The effect of law must always be considered when determining whether a law is beneficial or harmful. Today, the presumption of innocence has been watered down under the guise of
Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 S.C.C. (India).