Due Process Cannot Be Denied: Implications of Bombay High Court’s Reinforcement of Rights of Accused under Article 21
##Due Process Cannot Be Denied: Implications of Bombay High Court’s Reinforcement of Rights of Accused under Article 21
On October 22, 2021, the Bombay High Court reaffirmed the importance of due process in the Indian legal system, holding that the rights of the accused cannot be denied under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The decision, delivered by a Division Bench of Justice TV Nalawade and Justice BU Debadwar, highlights the fundamental principle of justice that underlies the Indian criminal justice system.
###Background
The case at hand involved an appeal against a sentence imposed on the accused for the offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused had been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, which he appealed on the grounds of denial of proper legal assistance and flawed investigation conducted by the police.
###Reinforcing Rights of Accused under Article 21
The High Court reiterated that due process is essential in every criminal trial and that the accused must be given a fair opportunity to present his defence. The Bench further stated that if proper legal aid is not provided to the accused, it would lead to a violation of his fundamental right to fair trial and due process under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, where it held that Article 21 not only guarantees the right to life and liberty but also includes within its ambit the right to a fair trial and due process. The Bench also referred to the landmark judgement of A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, where the Supreme Court observed that the “right to a fair trial is a part of the reasonable, just and fair procedure envisaged by Article 21”. Therefore, any violation of this fundamental right would render the trial unfair and hence, null and void.
###Importance of Legal Assistance
The Court emphasized the importance of legal assistance for an accused, especially in a criminal trial, where the stakes are high. It further added that a lawyer is better equipped to understand the intricacies of law and ensure that the accused’s rights are protected. In the case at hand, the accused had been denied legal aid, which led to a miscarriage of justice. The High Court, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and directed the State Legal Aid Services Authority to appoint a lawyer for him.
###Flawed Investigation
Another crucial aspect that the Court highlighted was the role of the investigative agency in a criminal trial. It observed that it is the duty of the police to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation, which forms the foundation of the trial. In this case, the Court found that the police had failed to follow the proper procedure during the investigation, and there were discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence.
The Bench cited the Supreme Court’s judgement in Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, which held that if the investigation is faulty and suffers from material irregularities, it would lead to a miscarriage of justice. In light of the flawed investigation conducted by the police in this case, the High Court held that the accused’s conviction and sentence cannot be sustained and must be set aside.
###Conclusion
The Bombay High Court’s decision serves as a reminder that the rights of the accused must not be compromised at any stage of a criminal trial. The Court’s reliance on the Constitution’s fundamental principles of fairness and due process reiterates that a fair trial is not a privilege but a right of every accused. The verdict also upholds the crucial role of the judiciary in safeguarding the rights of the citizens and ensuring that justice is served.
In conclusion, the decision of the Bombay High Court reinforces the importance of due process and legal assistance in the Indian criminal justice system and serves as a warning to investigative agencies to conduct thorough and impartial investigations. It also highlights the need for the State to ensure that adequate legal aid is provided to the accused to ensure a fair trial, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. This judgement will undoubtedly have far-reaching implications in the criminal justice system and serve as a guiding force for future cases involving similar issues.
