The principle, that the criminal justice process is also to be in accordance with the principle of the rule of law, is also very well enshrined in the Constitution. The principle, that “an accused is not guilty unless proven so in a court of law” is foundational to any legal system. It reflects the presumption of innocence, which means that every person accused of a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a court of law. This principle ensures that individuals are not unfairly punished or stigmatized based solely on accusations or suspicions.
The right to a fair trial is essential in upholding the rule of law and protecting individual liberties. It ensures that the principles of natural justice and fair process are being strictly followed. H.L.A. Hart summarized the principle of natural justice as follows:
“It may be said that the distinction between a good legal system which conforms at certain points to morality and justice, and a legal system which does not, is a fallacious one, because a minimum of justice is necessarily realized whenever human behaviour is controlled by general rules publicly announced and judicially applied. Indeed we have already pointed out,’ in analysing the idea of justice, that its simplest form (justice in the application of the law) consists in no more than taking seriously the notion that what is to be applied to a multiplicity of different persons is the same general rule, undeflected by prejudice, interest, or caprice.
This impartiality is what the procedural standards known to English and American lawyers as principles of ‘Natural Justice’ are designed to secure. Hence, though the most odious laws may be justly applied, we have, in the bare notion of applying a general rule of law, the germ at least of justice.”[1]
John Rawls defined the principle of natural justice in the following words[2]:
“Finally, there are those precepts defining the notion of natural justice. These are guidelines intended to preserve the integrity of the judicial process. If laws are directives addressed to rational persons for their guidance, courts must be concerned to apply and to enforce these rules in an appropriate way. A conscientious effort must be made to determine whether an infraction has taken place and to impose the correct penalty.
Thus, a legal system must make provisions for conducting orderly trials and hearings; it must contain rules of evidence that guarantee rational procedures of inquiry. While there are variations in these procedures, the rule of law requires some form of due process: that is, a process reasonably designed to ascertain the truth, in ways consistent with the other ends of the legal system, as to whether a violation has taken place and under what circumstances. For example, judges must be independent and impartial, and no man may judge his own case. Trials must be fair and open, but not prejudiced by public clamor. The precepts of natural justice are to insure that the legal order will be impartially and regularly maintained.”
It is thus required that the trial must be fair and open, but not prejudiced by public clamor. The precepts of natural justice are to ensure that the legal order will be impartially and regularly maintained. An accused cannot be declared guilty, unless proven so beyond reasonable doubt before a court of law. They cannot be declared guilty, unless there is a fair trial.
In this regard, it will be apposite to refer to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others[3], where it was held:
“Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence.
Since the fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial… The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.”
It has been held by Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah[4], that the right to a fair and speedy trial is enshrined under the right to life guaranteed under the Constitution.
The importance and purpose of the principles of natural justice have been succinctly summed up by Lord Megarry in the case of John v Rees[5] as under:
“It may be that there are some who would decry the importance which the courts attach to the observance of the rules of natural justice. ‘When something is obvious,’ they may say, ‘why force everybody to go through the tiresome waste of time involved in framing charges and giving an opportunity to be heard? The result is obvious from the start.’ Those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice.
As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change. Nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find that a decision against them has been made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events.”
Reference
Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures (2024)
[1] H.L.A. Hart, The Concept of Law (Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd Edn., 1994),
p. 206
[2] John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Revised Edition) (The Belknap Press of Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, 1999)
[3] AIR 2008 SC 1943
[4] (1982) 1 SCR 299
[5] (1970) Ch 345 at p. 402