NAME: PRIYANSHU KUMAR ENROLMENT NO: L20BALB051

AN ANALYSIS ON THE CONCEPT OF RIGHT TO FAIR TRIAL

ABSTRACT

Modern legal systems and international and local laws recognise the right to a fair trial as a
basic human right. It ensures that all criminal defendants get fair and unbiased treatment,
protecting individual rights and promoting justice. Ancient judicial systems were frequently
arbitrary and lacked fundamental defendant protections, which led to the right to a fair trial.
Legal systems have improved to guarantee fair and reasonable trials. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and
European Convention on Human Rights all provide the right to a fair trial. Many domestic
legal systems also guarantee a fair trial. Fair trial criteria vary. The right to a competent and
impartial tribunal, the right to be informed of the allegations against oneself, the right to
have enough time and facilities to prepare a defence, the ability to question witnesses, and
legal counsel are crucial components. These components promote fair and just trials and
protection of the accused.Despite its significance, the right to a fair trial faces several
obstacles and restrictions. These problems include insufficient legal aid financing, pretrial
detention and other coercive methods, and legal systemic prejudices and discrimination.
Modern judicial systems' complexity may also make fair trials harder. This research paper
examines relevant literature and case law to better comprehend the right to a fair trial and its
importance in modern legal practise. The report also examines some of the obstacles to
enforcing the right to a fair trial and proposes solutions. The article concludes that the right
to a fair trial is essential to access to justice and individual rights, and that legal systems
must be strengthened and improved to achieve fair and just trials.

Keywords: Right to a fair trial, Human rights, Legal systems, Legal representation, Access
to justice, Individual rights.
INTRODUCTION

Modern judicial systems are built on the principle of a free trial, which is crucial for
upholding the rule of law and human rights. The universal human rights declaration, the
International Agreement on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on
Human Rights are just a few examples of the worldwide and state legal frameworks that
recognize and defend the right to a fair trial. These legal documents acknowledge that
everyone has the right to be treated justly and fairly and to an unbiased hearing of their case.

The right to a free trial ensures that those who are charged with an offense have the
right to a fair trial by a competent, independent judiciary. This implies that the judges must be
qualified and unbiased, and the court or tribunal that hears the matter must be free from
prejudice and any outside pressure. The assumption of innocence, which states that a person
is presumed innocent until and until proved guilty, and the right to self-defence, which
comprises the right to legal counsel and the ability to present evidence and witnesses, are also
included in the right to a fair trial.

The right to a free trial is not unqualified, and in certain cases, it may be subject to
restrictions. For instance, the right to a free trial may be curtailed to safeguard public safety,
human rights, or national security. However, a number of circumstances, such as societal
standards, economic pressures, technical advancements, and political meddling, might
undermine the right to a fair trial.

The assumption of innocence and the use of technology in criminal procedures,

This research paper seeks to analyse the idea of the right to a free trial, along with its
significance and reach, the variables determining its application, the advantages and
difficulties, and suggestions for promoting and safeguarding this essential right. This research
study aims to improve knowledge of the value of the right to a free trial as well as the
difficulties it encounters in contemporary society by examining these problems.
MEANING AND SCOPE OF THE RIGHT TO FREE TRIAL

A basic human right that is necessary for preventing arbitrary arrest, conviction, and
punishment is the right to a fair trial. This right ensures that everyone, regardless of status or
the details of the accused act, has the right to a fair and unbiased trial. The rule of law, which
assures that everyone is regulated by law and that the law is applied fairly and justly, is
fundamentally based on the right to a free trial1.

Many procedural protections that defend the rights of the person being charged are
part of the right to a free trial. People have the right, for instance, to be notified of the
accusations made against them in addition to the time and resources to mount a defence. A
competent and unbiased judiciary must hear their case, and they have the right to legal
assistance in defending themselves2. People also have the right to cross-examine witnesses,
provide evidence in their defences, and, if they are unsatisfied with the result of their trial, the
right to appeal.

Many international and domestic legal systems respect and defend the right to a free
trial. For instance, the right to a fair trial is acknowledged as a fundamental human right in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1948. The right to a free trial is further defined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the UN General Assembly in
1966. It also lays out particular procedural protections that must be followed to guarantee a
fair trial. The right to a fair trial is also protected by the European Convention on Human
Rights, which was approved by the Council of Europe in 1950. It also outlines a framework
for implementing this right in European nations.

Scope

The scope of right to a fair trial has a wide variety of procedural protections that are intended
to guarantee that those who are accused of crimes are treated fairly and given a chance to
defend themselves. The following are some important elements of the right to a free trial:

1
P.N. Bhagwati, Human Rights in the Criminal Justice System, 27 JOURNAL OF THE INDIAN LAW INSTITUTE 1
(1985).
2
Pratik Purswani, Right to Fair Trial, https://www.academia.edu/32140339/Right_to_Fair_Trial (last visited Apr
18, 2023).
1. The right to legal representation: This states that everyone accused of a crime has the right
to legal counsel and aid throughout the course of the trial.

2. The right to an unbiased jury: This states that anyone accused of crimes have the right to
have their case decided by a jury of their peers who are fair and do not have any biases.

3. The right to know the accusations brought against them: This states that those accused of
crimes have a right to know the specific allegations brought against them as well as the
supporting documentation.

4. The ability to cross-examine witnesses who testify against a defendant and to object to the
evidence put forward in court is known as the right to confront witnesses.

5. The right to a swift trial: This guarantees those charged with crimes the right to a trial that
is expeditiously conducted and does not unduly extend their incarceration or impose
restrictions on their freedom.

6. The right to appeal: This states that those who have been found guilty of a crime have the
option of taking the decision and punishment to a higher court on appeal.

INTERNATIONAL AND NATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS PROTECTING THE

Several international and domestic legal systems preserve the right to a free trial. The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights are just a few of the international
documents that acknowledge the right to a fair trial3.

"Everyone is entitled in complete equality to a fair and public hearing by an

3
Segun Jegede, The Right To A Fair Trial In International Criminal Law, ESSAYS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
POLICY IN HONOUR OF NAVANETHEM PILLAY 519 (2010).
4
UNDHR, art. 10.
informed of the charges brought against them, and the right to a trial by an independent and
impartial tribunal. Trials must also be conducted in a fair and public manner.

Several nations also have national constitutions or legislation that safeguard the right
to a fair trial in addition to international legal frameworks. For instance, the Sixth
Amendment of the United States Constitution provides the right to an impartial jury, the right
to a prompt and public trial, the right to legal counsel, and the right to cross-examine
witnesses. The right to a fair trial is also protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which also includes the rights to legal counsel, an impartial judge, and knowledge
of one's own accusations.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The idea of a fair trial was already explored and elaborated upon by several philosophers and
legal theorists throughout history, and it has played a significant role in legal systems. Under
the Athenian legal system, people accused of crimes had a right to a trial before a jury made
up of their peers, which is one of the oldest instances of the right to a fair trial. The Twelve
Tables, which defined guidelines for judicial processes and ensured the right to a fair trial,
were similar to how the notion of due process was codified in ancient Rome.

Legal writings like the Magna Carta and the Assize of Clarendon helped to further
refine and codify the idea of a fair trial in medieval Europe. The Magna Carta, which King
John of England signed in 1215, created the idea of the rule of law and ensured that no free
man could be stripped of his liberty or property other than by the legal decision of his peers.
King Henry II of England passed the Assize of Clarendon in 1166, which defined the rules for
criminal trials and mandated that defendants be tried in front of a court of their peers 5.

Philosophers like John Locke and Montesquieu created ideas of natural law and
individual rights during the European Enlightenment that had an impact on the creation of
contemporary legal systems. According to John Locke, a government that did not uphold the
right to a fair trial could not be trusted to preserve the fundamental liberties of its inhabitants.
He also believed that the right to individual liberty and property rights depended on the right

5
Cristina Teleki, The Right to a Fair Trial, Due Process and Fair Trial in EU Competition Law: The Impact of Article
6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2021.
to a fair trial. Montesquieu, on the other hand, contended that the separation of powers and
the judiciary's independence from the administrative and legislative arms of government were
necessary for a fair trial.

The Bill of Rights, an amendment to the Constitution that was enacted in 1791,
established the right to a fair trial in the United States. The Sixth Amendment ensures that
anyone facing criminal accusations have the right to a fast and public trial, an unbiased jury,
information about the allegations brought against them, the opportunity to question witnesses,
and legal counsel.

International human rights legislation has also evolved and built upon the right to a
free trial. The right to a fair trial is acknowledged as a fundamental human right in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was approved by the United Nations General
Assembly in 1948. The right to a free trial is further defined in the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which was ratified by the UN General Assembly in 1966. It also
lays out particular procedural protections that must be followed to guarantee a fair trial.

ELEMENTS OF THE RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL

Not only is the right to a fair trial a basic human right, but it also forms the basis of
democracies. It serves as a safeguard that everyone is treated equally and fairly under the law,
regardless of their socioeconomic standing, race, or religion. Protecting individual liberty,
avoiding arbitrary incarceration, and upholding the rule of law all depend on the right to a fair
trial.

The need for an impartial tribunal is the first component of the right to a fair trial.
This factor is essential in ensuring that there is no prejudice or outside influence throughout
the decision-making process. A tribunal that is fair and impartial must also be autonomous
and unaffected by outside pressure. This factor is especially crucial in instances involving
delicate subjects like politics or religion when the tribunal may be under external pressure.

The assumption of innocence is the second component of the right to a fair trial. This
rule is crucial for preventing unfair punishment of those who lack adequate proof. The
prosecution has the burden of evidence, and an accused individual is deemed innocent until
and until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In order to satisfy this need, the
accused individual must also be made aware of the allegations against them and given the
chance to respond.

The third component of the right to a fair trial is the right to counsel. This component
guarantees that a defendant has access to legal counsel and may effectively prepare and
deliver their defence. It is crucial that the defendant be given the option of selecting their own
attorney or, if they are unable to pay for one, have one assigned by the court. The lawyer
must be provided enough time and resources for getting ready the case in order to fulfil this
need6.

The right to be heard is the fourth component of a fair trial. An accused individual
will have the chance to present their case and supporting evidence, to refute the evidence
contrary to them, and to make comments on their behalf thanks to this component. This need
also calls for the tribunal to pay attention to and react to the arguments put forward by the
parties.

The right to evidence and witnesses is the sixth component of the right to a fair trial.
This component makes sure that an accused individual gets access to all pertinent information
and potential witnesses to bolster their defence. The defence has the right to call witnesses to
support their case, and the prosecution is required to provide the defence with access to all
pertinent evidence. In order to satisfy this requirement, the tribunal must also take into
account all the relevant evidence.

The right to appeal is the last component of the right to a fair trial. This component
gives the accused individual a chance to appeal the tribunal's ruling and have the matter
reconsidered by a higher court. This component makes sure that the tribunal's judgment is
open to examination and revision and that any mistakes or injustices may be remedied.

PRINCIPLE OF RIGHT TO FREE TRIAL

1. Adversary system

6
David Harris, The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right, The International and
Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 2 pp. 352–78, 1967.
This approach recognized the equality of rights and opportunity for all participants. The
legislation also mandates that the judge play a considerably more active and influential role in
the conflict between the prosecutor-state and the charged person than that of a passive
referee.

After considering the facts of the case, the court—not the prosecution—will decide on the
charge against the defendant. Without the court's approval, a lawyer cannot quit the case. The
Apex Court stated that under the idea of a "free trial," the Code was not provided to the
parties in Himanshu v. State of MP7 two instances.

The organization or examiner in issue was not acting necessarily, according to the court's
reasoning. In order to protect equity, the court decided to use its power under sections 311 8
and 1659 of the Code of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to summon witnesses and obtain the
required data.

2. Presumption of innocence

The Supreme Court ruled in State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors. 10 that unless a defendant's guilt
is proven, they are all presumed innocent. The right to the presumption of innocent is a
human right, subject to legal limitations. The principle is the foundation of Indian criminal
law.

It is undeniable that erroneous acquittals are bad and undermine public trust in the legal
system, but what is far worse is the false conviction of an innocent person, the Supreme Court
said in Kali Ram v. State of H. P. 11 The repercussions of an innocent person's conviction are
far more severe, and they cannot be felt in a civilized community12.

3. Independent, impartial and competent judge

Being presided over by an impartial, competent, and independent judge is the most important
aspect of a fair criminal trial. The executive and judicial branches have been separated by the
Code, ensuring the independence of the judiciary and protecting it against claims of influence
or control on the part of the government. Every individual who has been found guilty has a
legal right to a fair trial.

7
Himanshu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 June 2021.
8
Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 311.
9
Indian evidence act, 1872, section 165.
10
Naresh And Ors. vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 April, 1981.
11
Kali Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 24 September, 1973.
12
Y. Srinivasa Rao. Right to fair trial district ecourts, pp 2-3.
 The court noted in Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1973 13 that the question is not
whether bias affected the judgment. The key issue is whether there are any factors that would
make a litigant reasonably assume that a judge's bias must have affected how the case turned
out.

4. Speedy Trial

The petitioner has an unalienable basic right to a speedy trial under Article 21 14 of the
Constitution. One of a rapid trial's key objectives is to:

1. ensure the accused's right to a speedy trial

2. quickly and in the public interest handle criminal cases

3. Ensure effective resource management.

5. Double Jeopardy Doctrine

According to this view, even if a person is exhausted and innocent of any crimes, they cannot
be exhausted more than once for the same offense or based on the same circumstances for
another offense. Important features of this ideology may be found in both Section 300 15 of the
statute and Article 20(2)16 of the constitution.

Even if the second or subsequent trial breaches the higher than concept, it would still
unfairly target the defendant and is prohibited by both the constitution and the law. The
Supreme Court ruled in the S.A. Venkatraman v. Union of India 17 case that the Enquiry
Commissioner's procedure was insufficient to establish a commission for a crime. It had been
planned for the investigation to result in the government initiating legal action against the
appellant. It is incorrect to say that the subject has been charged.

13
Shyam Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 16 March, 1972.
14
INDIA CONST. art. 21.
15
Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 300.
16
INDIA CONST. art. 20, cl. 2.
17
S.A. Venkataraman vs The Union of India and Another on 30 March, 1954.
CHALLENGES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The finest illustration of the adage "Justice delayed, Justice denied" is regarded as the
criminal court system in India. Any judicial system's effectiveness may be assessed by how
quickly cases are resolved. Every accused person has the constitutional right to a speedy trial,
which is provided under Section 30918 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In most cases, slow
investigations into crimes or careless investigative methods lead to delays in speedy trials.
There is a significant backlog of cases in courts as a result of the excessive litigation delay.
Around 30 million lawsuits are pending in different courts, according to statistics.

Many of these instances include an innocent individual who has spent years in prison
as a witness against him. Mufti Abdul, the accused in the Akshardham terrorist attack case,
was sentenced to 12 years in prison. Justices A K Patnaik and Venkate Gopala Gowda's
Supreme Court panel exonerated all six defendants, including those who had been given the
death sentence, on May 16, 2014. The Gujarat Police received harsh criticism from the
Supreme Court for the way it handled the case's investigation. The bench reached the
conclusion, concluding that the prosecution had not shown the accused's guilt. The Supreme
Court delayed 7 years to rule in the 2012 Delhi gang rape case. 107 judges are present in
England for every million inhabitants, compared to 10 in India. To make sure that the cases
are resolved in a timely manner, this number must be raised.

The Criminal Procedure Code's Section 437(6)19 was created to preclude the release
on bail of a person who has been charged with a non-bailable offense but has been forced to
remain in custody due to a delayed trial in cases where the trial has not been resolved 60 days
after the initial date set for gathering evidence. In Puran V. Rambilas and Anr. 20, it was
decided that while handling a bail application, the court should explain in its ruling the
grounds for determining on the basis of prima facie that bail was being granted, especially
where an accused was charged with committing a severe offense. In the case of State of
Maharashtra v. Anant Chintaman Dighe21, the accused was given bail because he was a well-
known political party leader and there was no chance that he would later conduct any crimes.

18
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, section 309.
19
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, section 437 cl. 6.
20
Puran, Shekhar and Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001.
21
Anant Chintaman Lagu vs The State Of Bombay on 14 December, 1959.
However, upon his release on bail, it was discovered that he was delivering incitement-
inspiring lectures and threatening prosecution witnesses with murder.

The Apex Court concluded that the accused's bail was properly cancelled and that the
court did not need to intervene. The system reacted to this circumstance by establishing
Section 43622-A80, which outlines the ability of a prisoner who is undergoing a trial to ask for
bail after they have served half of the maximum sentence they would have received if found
guilty.

Second, the judicial system has a tremendous amount of work to do. In India, the police are
regarded as the primary investigative body, and there are 138 police officers for every
100,000 residents. There are 229 and 505 people per 100,000 in other nations like the United
States and Spain, respectively. According to Section 155(2)23 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
a magistrate may direct the police to investigate a non-cognizable offense. A cognizable
offense may be the subject of a police investigation under Section 156 24 of the CrPC. It is true
that a police inquiry conducted inadvertently may alter the outcome of the case.

CASE STUDY

1. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)25 - Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking into a
pool club and robbing the establishment of money in this case. Gideon asked for a court-
appointed attorney during his trial, but the trial judge rejected his request, claiming that court-
appointed counsel was only allowed in instances involving the death penalty. After being
forced to defend himself in court, Gideon was convicted guilty and given a five-year jail
term. Gideon filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the right to
counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment extends to state criminal proceedings and that
states are required to provide legal representation for poor defendants. The entitlement to
legal counsel in a fair trial is well illustrated by this case.

2. Nigeria v. Amina Lawal (2002)26 - Amina Lawal, a Nigerian woman, was in this case found
guilty of adultery under Sharia law and given the death by stoning punishment. Concerns
22
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, section 436.
23
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, section 155, cl. 2.
24
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1873, section 156.
25
Gideon v. Wainwright, Oyez, 18 March, 1963.
26
Nigeria v. Amina Lawal, 23 March, 2002.
concerning the right to a fair trial, including the need for an unbiased jury and the prohibition
against harsh, inhumane, or humiliating treatment, were brought up by the case. Lawal's
attorneys claimed that the tribunal was prejudiced against her and that the prosecution had not
presented sufficient evidence to establish Lawal's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
International media outlets covered the case, and various human rights organizations pushed
for Lawal's release. In the end, an appeals court reversed the judgment, and Lawal was freed.

3. Attorney General v. Ahmed Zaoui (2004)27 - Ahmed Zaoui, a refugee and former member
of an Islamic political party in Algeria, was held by the Security Intelligence Service of New
Zealand for more than two years without being charged or going to trial. The case sparked
questions about the rights to a fair trial and pretrial release. According to Zaoui's legal
representatives, his incarceration was unlawful, and he should either be freed or prosecuted
and tried. Zaoui was liberated and given refugee status in New Zealand after a protracted
court fight.

4. Turkey v. Calan (2005)28 - In this instance, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
determined that various breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights prevented
Abdullah Calan, the head of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, from receiving a fair trial. The
absence of a public hearing and the restriction of access to legal counsel in the early stages of
the proceedings were among the infractions. The ECHR ruled that Turkey must compensate
Calan for these infractions, which they deemed to be infringement of his right to a fair trial.

5. Assange v. Sweden and the United States (ongoing): In this case, the WikiLeaks founder
Julian Assange is being sought to be extradited from the United Kingdom to Sweden and
perhaps the United States, where he is accused of publishing secret material. Concerns
concerning the right to a fair trial, particularly the right to an unbiased jury and the right to
free speech, are brought up by the case. According to Assange's legal representatives,
extradition to the United States would violate his right to a fair trial and expose him to
political persecution. International media attention has been focused on the case, which has
generated considerable controversy.

CONCLUSION

27
Attorney General v. Ahmed Zaoui, 18 June 2005.
28
Mirja Trilsch & Alexandra Rüth, Ӧcalan v. Turkey, 21 June 2006.
One of the most significant rights that people have under international law and in many
national legal systems is the right to a fair trial. The European Convention on Human Rights,
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights all have references to this right. The defence of individual freedom, the
upholding of the rule of law, and the advancement of justice and fairness in society all depend
on the right to a fair trial.

The right to legal counsel is one of the most important aspects of the right to a fair
trial. By exercising this privilege, defendants are guaranteed access to knowledgeable and
skilled legal representation that can educate them of their legal rights and advocate for them
in court. Without competent legal assistance, people may be at a serious disadvantage while
negotiating the legal system's intricacies and their rights may be jeopardized.

The right to an impartial tribunal is a crucial component of the right to a fair trial. This
right guarantees that judges and other judicial authorities remain impartial, independent, and
unaffected by outside pressure. To make sure that people are treated fairly and impartially,
and that justice is served, the right to an impartial tribunal is essential.

A crucial element of the right to a fair trial is the right to a public hearing. This right
guaranteed openness and transparency in court proceedings as well as the public's access to
information about the judicial system. In addition to providing openness and accountability,
the right to a public hearing is crucial for fostering public trust in the justice system.

Additionally, a key component of the right to a fair trial is the ability to be held
innocent until and until proved guilty. This concept guarantees that people are not subjected
to arbitrary or unreasonable imprisonment or punishment and that they are given a reasonable
chance to respond to any charges levelled against them. A fundamental component of the
criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence is essential to ensure that people are
not subjected to unfair or unjust punishment.

Finally, a crucial component of the right to a fair trial is the freedom from harsh,
inhuman, or degrading treatment. This right protects people from being tortured, physically
or mentally abused, or subjected to other sorts of cruel treatment while going through the
judicial system. To guarantee that people are treated with dignity and respect and that their
rights are upheld throughout the legal process, it is crucial that they have the right to be free
from cruel, inhumane, or humiliating treatment.
 Finally, it should be noted that the right to a fair trial is a basic human right that is
crucial for preserving individual freedom, advancing justice and fairness, and defending the
rule of law. It is crucial that governments and legal systems all over the world uphold and
protect these rights, which include the right to legal representation, an impartial tribunal, a
public hearing, the presumption of innocence, and freedom from cruel, inhuman, or
degrading treatment. By doing this, they may make sure that justice is served and that
everyone is treated equally, with respect, and dignity.