Scribd
Upload
313 views

Adversarial System: Role of Parties

The adversarial system is a legal system used in common law countries where two advocates present opposing arguments to an impartial judge or jury. The judge's role is to ensure a fair trial according to evidentiary rules. Each party controls their own case and bears the burden of proof. This contrasts with the inquisitorial system, where a judge investigates. Key advantages of the adversarial system include fairness, observation of party rights, and hearing both sides' stories. A famous US case, Brown v. Board of Education, illustrated how the adversarial system can address injustice faced by ordinary people against the state. India also follows the adversarial system with a presumption of innocence and binding precedents.

Uploaded by

Anish Garg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
313 views

Adversarial System: Role of Parties

The adversarial system is a legal system used in common law countries where two advocates present opposing arguments to an impartial judge or jury. The judge's role is to ensure a fair trial according to evidentiary rules. Each party controls their own case and bears the burden of proof. This contrasts with the inquisitorial system, where a judge investigates. Key advantages of the adversarial system include fairness, observation of party rights, and hearing both sides' stories. A famous US case, Brown v. Board of Education, illustrated how the adversarial system can address injustice faced by ordinary people against the state. India also follows the adversarial system with a presumption of innocence and binding precedents.

Uploaded by

Anish Garg
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Adversarial System

Introduction
The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in common law countries
(such as England) where two advocates present their case or position before an impartial
person or group of people, usually a jury or judge who attempts to determine the truth and
pass judgement accordingly.

This system is in contrast to the inquisitorial system being prevalent in Mainland Europe where
a judge investigates the case.

Australia, United States, United Kingdom, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Canada, etc. which
use the common law system also follow the adversarial method of trial. The adversarial method
of trial was inherited from Britain due to colonization.

Features of adversary system


 Role of parties - Each party has control of their own case as long
as the rules of evidence and procedure are followed. This is as known as
party control and due to this they are more likely to be satisfied with
outcome.
 Role of judge - The judge acts as an umpire to ensure that the
case is conducted according to the rules of evidence and procedure and
that both sides are treated fairly. For the system to operate effectively, it
is essential that the judge acts impartially.
 Burden of proof - The burden of proof lies with the person
bringing the case. In criminal cases it’s prosecution and in civil cases it’s
plaintiff.
 Rules of evidence and procedure - The rules of procedure
provide the framework in which court cases can take place and through
which the court will try to bring about a resolution to the case. It assist
the parties to achieve a just outcome and aims that the truth emerges
through the use of the rules of procedure.

Advantages of adversarial system


 This system is seen as fair and less prone to abuse as it does not allow any
room for the state to favour against the defendant.
 It properly observes the rights of the defending and prosecuting parties.
 The adversarial system allows both parties to present witnesses and
evidences to support their positions and challenge arguments.
 In this approach, police plays an essential role in path of justice, where
they are the one’s who will run the investigation such as presenting
warrant.
 It hears the stories from both sides and the judge gives his judgement.

There are 3 main reasons why the inquisitorial system is not good –

1. Lengthy - With just one group uncovering information instead of two, inquisitorial
system could take time. This leaves cases left open for much longer.
2. Limited opportunities - Unlike the adversarial system, the inquisitorial system
provide limited opportunities for individuals to defend themselves.
3. Bias - One of the main concern of those against the inquisitorial system is that it is not
immune to bias.
4. Proven guilty - In this system, the accused is proven guilty unless he can prove.
5. Influence - Judge may be influenced by outside issues, past records of the defendant
etc.

Brown v. Board Of Education Of topeka


 A famous case in the United States (Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka) illustrated
the great strength of adversarial system, particularly when individual faces the might of
state.
 Oliver Brown ( the plaintiff ) was a parent, a welder in a shop and a pastor at his local
church.
 Plaintiff was African american.
 His daughter, Linda, attended Monroe Elementary School. There was a more convenient
school Summer Elementary but it was for whites only.
 This case had a profound effect. In 1957, Supreme court of US held, reversing previous
Supreme court decisions, that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal
and violative.
 This case is about addressing injustice in the lives of ordinary people.
 The lawyers on behalf of both the parties faced each other like gladiators in the pursuit
of justice.
 The adversarial process dealt with that particular injustice of segregation without being
biased and allowing both the parties to present their arguments.

Indian Legal System


Indian legal system is the triveni where the streams of common law, religious law and civil law
merge but mostly India follows the common law system. Our system follows the adversarial
process and it gives great importance to precedents set by past judgements of court.

In Indian legal system there is presumption of innocence i.e. the accused is presumed innocent
until proven guilty. The judge is supposed to remain neutral, weigh the arguments and produce
a judgement. Another word for this is “blind justice” which means not blind to the facts but
blind to the wealth, color, religion etc. of the accused. In most circumstances, judge or jury is
bound to find the accused innocent unless he is convinced “ Beyond a Reasonable Doubt “ of
the guilt of the accused.

Had our system followed the concept of presuming accused guilty then the jails would have
been jam packed with people who were not actually guilty resulting in chaos and injustice.

Indian system operate on the doctrine of stare decisis in order to operate precedence of court
decisions to provide binding force for future to lower court rulings. In other words, stare decisis
is the legal basis for caselaw. Whereas stare decisis has been demonstrated to not fit well with
the inquisitorial approach.

It is rightly said by Frederick Douglas: “Where justice is denied, where ignorance prevails and
where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, then
neither person nor property ill e safe.”

Thus fairness and true justice through adversarial system prevails over other systems.

By - Anish Garg (Llb 2019, sec. C )

You might also like