MODULE – I:

Introduction to Civil Procedure Code

a) Genesis of civil procedure in India before the advent of British rule
b) Features of the Civil Procedure Code-Extent, its application, Definitions
Historical Background
• There were Crown Courts in Presidency towns and Provincial Courts in Mofussil prior to 1859.
• The courts in Mofussil areas were governed by various civil procedure systems based on various
rules and regulations that were frequently changed to meet changing needs and circumstances.
• Before 1859, there was no uniform civil procedure applicable for the entire country. Sir Charles
Wood was responsible for codifying the civil law, he was then President of the Board for the affairs
of India and instructed the Second Law Commission to prepare a simple code for applicability in all
Indian courts.
• To provide uniformity in regulating civil procedure in India, the Legislative Council of India enacted
the first code of civil procedure in 1859, which received the Governor-General's assent on March
23, 1859.
• However, the code was ineffective because it did not apply to the Supreme Courts (Crown Courts
under the Royal Charter) and the Sardar Diwani Adalats (Principal Courts under the Judicial Plan
by the Governor-General).
• Following that, in 1861, the Indian High Courts Act and the Supreme Court Act were passed,
establishing High Courts in Mumbai, Chennai, and Kolkata.
• The Sardar Diwani Adalats were abolished.
• The Code of Civil Procedure of 1859 was also made applicable to the High Courts; however, due to
the code's irregularities, it was replaced by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877.
• The Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 was amended again in 1878 and 1879.
• Later, the Code of Civil Procedure of 1877 was replaced by the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882,
which also failed to overcome the shortcomings of its predecessors.
• There existed a conflict of judicial opinion and interpretation of certain procedures of the Code.
• Finally, the current Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 was passed after removing all of the flaws of
the previously enacted codes.
In 1908, with the assent of the Governor-General, The Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 was
implemented. The Civil Procedure Code has been amended several times to meet the needs and
requirements which are dynamic and changing from time to time. Between 1909 to 1976, the Code has
been amended for more than 30 times.
Two important amendments were made in 1951 and 1956. Despite there being some defects in it,
the Code was enforced satisfactorily. The Law Commission submitted several reports with the
requirement of what changes should be made while keeping in mind the following necessities –
1. The procedure must not be complex and must allow a fair deal to economically weaker sections of
society.
2. A litigant must get a fair trial in accordance with the accepted principles of natural justice. In 2002,
several considerable changes were made to the CPC of which some of the changes are listed below
1. Number of adjournments to be restricted
2. Provision for outside of court settlement to be introduced
 3. Provision for recording evidence by the Court commissioner has been made
4. A provision is made for the filing of an appeal in the court where the decree has been passed.
Introduction to Civil Procedure Code
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs the practices and procedures to be followed in the Civil
Courts. The primary goal of this civil procedure code is to consolidate and amend the laws governing
the procedure and practices used in Indian civil courts. It governs all actions in civil courts and the
parties involved until the decree and order are carried out.
The Civil Procedure Code was passed on 21st March 1908 and came into force on 1st January 1909
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) of 1908 is a type of procedural or adjective legislation. This
legislation governs the administration of civil processes in the nation.
Laws can be divided into two groups –
1. Substantive law
2. Adjective or Procedural law
The substantive law determines the rights and liabilities of parties and adjective or procedural law
prescribes the practice, for the enforcement of those rights and liabilities.
The efficiency of substantive laws depends upon the quality of procedural laws. Thus, procedural
laws are an accessory to substantial laws. These two are complementary to each other and they are
interdependent.
Procedural laws give life to substantial laws by providing the remedy and by implementing the
maxim ubi jus ibi remedium.
Some examples of procedural law are the Civil Procedure Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and
Indian Evidence Act. Indian Penal Code, the Indian Contract Act, and the Transfer of Property Act are
examples of substantive law.
The procedural law is concerned with the enforcement of duties and rights specified by substantive
law rules.
It establishes the law that governs the procedure to be followed in civil court. It is one of the most
essential parts of procedural law.
A Code, as defined in Section 2 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is a set of rules that govern
the movement of a case in court.
The sections under the Code of Civil Procedure address general principles of jurisdiction, whereas
the orders and rules outline the procedure and method for governing civil proceedings in India.
Consolidation and Codification –
The Preamble of the Code states that it was enacted to consolidate and amend the laws relating to
the procedure to be followed in the civil courts having civil jurisdiction in India. The main reason why
some parts of the law are codified is that the law should be ascertained from the language used in the
enactment and not from the preceding act.
In Prem Lal Nahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, the court observed that the CPC deals with
substantive rights but mainly aims to consolidate the law relating to civil courts and procedures.
 Before 1859, there was no uniform codified law relating to procedure of civil courts in India. In
those days the crown courts at presidency towns and the provincial courts at mofussils were governed
by the different systems of civil procedures by certain rules, regulations and special acts as, applicable
to them from time to time.
For the first time in 1859, uniform code of civil procedure was introduced with passing of the Civil
Procedure Code (Act/VIII of 1859), but it did not serve the purpose since it was not applicable to the
supreme courts (Crown Courts under the Royal Charter) and Sadar Diwani Adalats (Principal Courts
under the Judicial Plan by the Governor General). After the passing of Indian High Courts Act, 1861,
the Supreme courts and Sadar Adalats were abolished as in their place High Court were established in
their place at Madras, Bombay and Calcutta and the code of 1859 was made applicable to high courts.
The code of 1859 was amended from time to time and was replaced with the passing of Code of
Civil Procedure 1877. The Code of 1877 also was amended in 1878 and 1879. In 1882, the third Code
of Civil Procedure was enacted. The Code of Civil procedure, 1882 also was amended several times
and ultimately the present Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was passed overshadowing the defects of the
Code of 1882.
Meaning and Objects:
• The law relating to the procedure of civil courts is regulated/ governed by the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, the word 'Code' literally means, a systematic collection of statutes, body of law so
arranged as to avoid inconsistency and overlapping.
• The main object of Code of Civil Procedure is to consolidate and amend the law relating to the
procedure of civil courts in India.
• As such, it was enshrined in the preamble of the Code that it was enacted to consolidate and amend
the laws relating to the procedure to the followed in court
• It collects all the laws that should be adopted by the civil courts. The main aim of the CPC is to
facilitate justice and seek an end to the litigation rather than not to provide any form of punishment
and penalties.
• It was held in Saiyad Mohammad Bakar v. Abdul Habib Hasan Arab, that the procedural law is
always subservient to and is in aid to justice. Nothing can be given by a procedural law what is not
sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing can be taken away by the procedural law what
is given by the substantive law.
• The Code is exhaustive on the matters directly dealt by it but does not expand much upon the points
that it does not specifically deal with. The writers of the Code could not foresee the possible
circumstances which may arise in future litigations and could not, as a result, provide the procedure
for such scenarios. Hence, inherent powers were awarded to the court to meet such circumstances
according to the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience.
In simple words, the aim of procedure law is to implement the principles of substantive law. It ensure
fair justice by enforcing the rights and liability of the citizens
The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) attempts to clarify, reform, and consolidate the rules governing
civil court practices and procedures in the country. The purpose of the Code is to assist justice by
enforcing rights and duties.
The Civil Procedure Code neither creates nor takes away any right. It is intended to regulate the
procedures followed by the civil court.
Scope
• The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is exhaustive in terms of the topics under its direct authority.
However, the code covers a wide range of additional topics. The code's founders had no idea what
situations may arise in future lawsuits.
• As a result, the founders gave the court's inherent authority to deal with such circumstances in
accordance with the principles of equity, natural justice, and good conscience.
• The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a standard procedural legislation. It does not contravene any
existing special or municipal legislation.
• If a disagreement emerges between the special law and the code, the special law will take
precedence. If local law has no voice in the situation, the code will take precedence.
• The code is exhaustive on the matters specifically dealt with by it. However, it is not exhaustive on
the points not specifically dealt with therein. The legislature is incapable of contemplating all the
possible circumstances which may arise in future litigation and consequently for providing
procedure for them. With regard to those matters, the court has inherent power to act according to
the principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Retrospective Operation
The CPC is not retrospective in operation.
Extent and Applicability
The Civil Procedure Code was passed on 21st March 1908 and came into force on 1st January 1909.
The Code is applicable to the whole country.
Before it was not applicable to Jammu and Kashmir but after passing Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Act 2019, all central Act including Civil Procedure Code was made applicable to
Jammu and Kashmir.
Excep:- the state of Nagaland and tribal areas; provided that the state government concerned may,
be notification in the official gazette, extend the provision of this code or any of them to the whole or
part of the state of Nagaland or such Tribal areas, as the case may be with such supplemental, incidental
or consequential notifications as may be specified in the notification.
CPC in Brief
CPC has XI Parts containing 158 sections. 1 Schedule, LI Orders (51orders) each order contains
number of Rules and 9 Appendices containing 223 Forms. schedules II to V were repealed
Case laws
• Virender Singh v. the Delhi State Cooperative Bank Limited (2021)
In this case, the Delhi High Court opined that, while there is no absolute bar to the maintainability
of a suit, the court's scope of interference in such a suit in conducting a disciplinary inquiry or Show
Cause Notice is limited by nature.
The respondent, in this case, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, challenging the plaintiff's suit on the grounds that it is not maintainable under the Delhi
Cooperative Societies Act, 2003. The trial court denied this application.
• Narayanee v. S. Karthik (2021)
The Madras High Court issued its decision in the case which involved an appeal against a Family
Court decision that involved dissolving a marriage between two parties.
 The issue before the Court was whether the appellate's failure to participate in a divorce proceeding
in which she is a party will result in the Court assuming that the respondent's allegations against her
are accepted by her.
The Madras High Court provided two reasons in response to this issue, which are presented below:
According to Order 8I Rule 5(1) of the 1908 Code of Civil Procedure, "every allegation of fact in
the plaint, if not denied expressly or by necessary implication, shall be taken to be admitted as against
the person who failed to deny the same."
As a result, in this case, the appellate's absence during the divorce proceeding reflects the fact that
she has admitted to the allegations made by her husband, the respondent.
The Court then inferred from a combined reading of Order 16, Rule 20, Order 15, Rule 4, and Order
22, Rule 4 of the Code of 1908 that if any party whose suit is pending before the court refuses to
provide evidence in support of his or her pleading, the Court can immediately pronounce the
judgment, thereby disposing of the suit.
Salient features of the Code: there are following features:
• The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is one of the most important branches of the procedural law and
regulates the procedure to be adopted in all civil courts having jurisdiction in India. It came into
force from 1st January 1909.
• It comprises of two parts viz. i) the body and; ii) the schedule. The body contains 158 sections
divided into 12 parts constitutes the first part, while the schedule containing rules and orders form
the second part. The schedule contains 51 orders. Each order contains rules.
• The Code is a territorial law. It extends to the whole of India except; the state of Nagaland and tribal
areas; provided that the state government \concerned may, be notification in the official gazette,
extend the provision of this code or any of them to the whole or part of the state of Nagaland.
• It is significant to note that the Code made the procedure in Civil Courts very simple for enforcement
of rights, liabilities and obligations of the citizens. In other words, the code provides mechanism for
enforcement of substantive rights.
• The code is the general law applicable to the proceedings of all civil courts without prejudice to the
local or special law in force. In case of conflict, the special will prevail over the code. However, the
provisions of the court shall apply if the local or special law is silent.
• The Code has been amended several times. It was amended more than 30 times during 1909- 1976.
Recently it was amended in 1999 and 2002 vide the Court of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act,
1999 and the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002.
• The acts of 1999 and 2002 i.e. the Code of Civil Procedure Amendment (Act), 1999 and the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002 came into force on the same day. The 1st July 2002.
 Judicial System in British India
The pre-colonial Indian judicial system, whether during the Mughal era or even earlier (during
the ancient period), did not adopt proper procedures, organise the law courts in a regular grading from
the highest to the lowest, or distribute the courts proportionately to the areas they would be serving.
Most Hindu court cases were determined by zamindars, local panchayats, or elders of the caste.
The unit of judicial administration for Muslims was the qazi, an office held by religious
individuals, which was situated in provincial capitals, towns, and qasbas (large villages). As the
purveyors of justice, were the rajas and badshahs, the administration of justice was arbitrary.
The East India Company of the English was formed under the Charter Act of 1604 and in 1639,
acquired a piece of land in Madras Patnam and established their Factory called Fort St. George.
Initially, the Company was interested in commercial activities, but they slowly started to show interest
in settlement of legal disputes over their native English people settled in Fort St. George at Madras.
With the expanding commercial activities, they showed interest in establishing Courts and judicial
systems in Madras. By the Charter Act of 1681, the Company established a Mayor’s Court at Madras
to decide civil, criminal and Admiralty (disputes in sea) cases. The Mayor’s Court was in addition to
the Choultry Court and the Admiralty Court existing at that time.
With the passage of time, the East India Company established their branches in Calcutta and
Bombay. So, by the Charter Act of 1726, three Mayor Courts were established each in Madras, Bombay
and Calcutta. Their jurisdiction was confined only to civil cases. The system of appeals was also
introduced. From Mayor’s Court, appeals went to Governor in Council and then to Privy Council in
England for cases exceeding 1000 pagodas. By the Charter Act of 1753, certain changes were
introduced in the existing Mayor’s Courts. In 1770, Fox India Bill was introduced to control the
administration of the East India Company.
Reforms under Warren Hastings
In 1772, Sir warren Hastings came to India as Governor of Bengal and he introduced his judicial
pan of 1772, 1774 and 1780. He introduced Diwani Adalats (civil courts) and Nizamat and Faujdari
Adalats (criminal Courts). In 1773, the Regulating Act was enacted by the British Parliament to control
the activities of the East India Company. Under the Regulating Act 1773, a Supreme Court was
established at Calcutta. This Supreme Court and the Company’s Courts (Adalats) came in conflict with
one another. The conflicts have led to the occurrence of important cases like Trial of Nandakumar.
Kamal uddin case, Patna case, Cossijurah case, etc. The defects in the Regulating Act had to be
necessarily rectified and this was done in the form of ‘Act of Settlement 1781’. In 1784, Pitt’s India
Act was enacted to solve the problems of the administration of the East India Company.
District Diwani Adalats, presided over by a collector, were established to handle civil disputes
involving both Muslim and Hindu law. The District Diwani Adalats’ appeal was heard by the Sadar
Diwani Adalat.
To handle criminal cases, District Fauzdari Adalats were established. They were managed by an
Indian officer with the aid of qazis and muftis.
The collector also had overall control over these adalats. Fauzdari Adalats were employed to enforce
Islamic law.
Capital punishment and property acquisition were handled by the Sadar Nizamat Adalat in
Murshidabad, which was led by a deputy Nizam (an Indian Muslim) and assisted by the main qazi and
senior mufti.
Reforms under Cornwallis
Lord Cornwallis came to India in 1786 succeeding Warren Hastings. He introduced three judicial
plans in 1787, 1780 and 1793.
1. Judicial Plan of 1787
The tax and judicial systems were combined under the 1787 Judicial Plan, which gave the
Collector control over both.
Lord Cornwallis built Mal Adalats in each location. These courts dealt only with matters pertaining
to income. The court was presided over by the Collector, who was in charge of revenue concerns. The
appeals from these revenue tribunals were considered by the Board of Tax in Calcutta and then by the
Governor-General in Council.
Additionally, District Diwani Adalats, which dealt with civil disputes, were presided over by the
Collector. A new office of the Registrar, commonly referred to as the Registrar court, was established
as a subordinate office to the Collector to handle minor civil disputes. The Collector’s signature was
necessary before the Registrar’s order became effective.
2. Judicial Plan of 1790
In 1790, the new criminal justice system was carried out. He reorganised four divisions: Calcutta,
Dacca, Murshidabad, and Patna. The District Fauzdari Courts were abolished and it was replaced by
the Circuit Courts. European judges presided over the circuit courts that were formed in Calcutta,
Murshidabad, Dacca, and Patna.
Both civil and criminal appeals are heard by these courts. The Governor-General and members of
his council oversaw the relocation of the Sadar Nizamat Adalat, the highest court of criminal appeal,
to Calcutta.
3. Judicial Plan of 1793
In 1793, Lord Cornwallis kept advancing the legal system. Mal Adalats, in which Collectors served
as judges and ruled over only tax-related issues, were no longer in operation. The District Diwani
Adalats received the authority.
The Cornwallis Code of 1793 drew a distinct distinction between judicial and revenue
management. After the District Diwani Adalat, the District, City, or Zilla Court was renamed. To
oversee District courts and exercise magisterial authority, the District Judge’s office was established.
An upgradation of civil courts was created for both Hindu and Muslim law, and it is as follows:
• The Registrar’s Court is presided over by a European Judge, while the Munsiff’s Court was presided
over by Indian authorities.
• The District Court is presided over by the District Judge.
• Four circuit courts make up the provincial courts of appeal.
• The Sadar Diwani Adalat in Calcutta.
• The King-in-Council must be consulted for appeals of 5,000 pounds or more..
3. Reforms under William Bentinck
During the administration of Governor-General William Bentinck, the four Circuit Courts were
abolished. Their duties were given to the Collector, who was in charge of them under the direction of
the commissioner of revenue and circuit. At Allahabad, William Bentinck erected Sadar Diwani Adalat
and Sadar Nizamat Adalat for the comfort of the residents of the upper provinces.
 The court’s official language in the past was Persian. The court sessions could now be held in
Persian or a local language, nevertheless. The Supreme Court currently conducts all of its hearings in
English.
Other important Development during British India
Charter Act of 1833
The Charter Act of 1833 created the Indian Law Commission, which Lord Macaulay presided over,
to compile Indian laws. In response to the law commission’s recommendations, the Code of Civil
Procedure (1859), the Indian Penal Code (1860), and the Criminal Procedure Code (1862) were all
created.
Establishment of High Courts
The Supreme Court at Calcutta established in 1778 was followed by Supreme Court at Madras in
1801 and Supreme Court at Bombay in 1828.
All these Supreme Courts existed till 1861 and High Courts replaced them under the Indian High
Courts Act 1861.
The High Courts at Calcutta, Bombay, Madras and Allahabad came into existence in 1861, under
the Indian High Courts Act, 1861, after abolition of the Supreme Courts, the Adalats, etc.
Each High Court consists of a Chief Justice and up to 15 regular justices. The charters for the High
Courts of Bombay and Madras were issued in June 1862, while the charter for the High Court of
Calcutta was issued in May 1862. As a result, the Calcutta High Court was established as the first High
Court in the nation.
The Indian High Court Act of 1861, which permitted the Crown to establish any other High Court
inside British India, allowed for the establishment of the High Court for the North-Western Province
at Agra in March 1866, replacing the Sadar Adalat. In 1869, this High Court moved to Allahabad. Thus,
the Allahabad High Court became the first provincial High Court in the nation.
Following then, more High Courts were created. In February 1916, the Patna High Court was
created. The Punjab High Court was established in Lahore in 1919, moved to Shimla upon
independence, and subsequently to Chandigarh in 1955.
Till the year 1935, all appeals from the Indian High Courts went to Privy Council in England. So,
in the year 1935, a Federal Court was established in India under the Government of India Act 1935-to
hear appeals.
The Privy Council in England played an important role in the development of Indian legal system.
It started hearing appeals from Indian Courts from 1726 onwards and upto 1935, when the Federal
Court was established.
Federal Court and Supreme Court
The Federal Court, which had the authority to settle federal issues between administrations, was
formed by the Government of India Act of 1935. The Federal Court was formed in Delhi in 1937,
consisting of no more than six judges and a Chief Justice.
In three areas such as original, appellate, and advisory, the court possessed jurisdiction. It was
established exclusively to settle conflicts between provinces and federal states and to hear limited
appeals from the High Courts. In accordance with its advising authority, it provides the governor-
general of India with a recommended opinion.
 If the Federal Court files an appeal, it may be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council
in London. The federal court was renamed the Supreme Court of India after India gained independence.
In order to abolish Privy Council jurisdictions, the Constituent Assembly passed the Abolition of Privy
Council Jurisdiction Act in 1949.
In 1947 India got independence and it became republic on 26th January 1950. The Federal Court
becomes the Supreme Court of India and the appeals to Privy Council at U.K. was abolished
 INQUISITORIAL MODEL OF JUSTICE AND ADVERSARY MODEL OF JUSTICE
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of any criminal justice system is to punish the offender and protect the innocent.
Offenders are the threat to the society. State machinery is operative to prevent the crime and penalize
the offender. But it is a matter of concern for all that innocent must not suffer in the name of justice.
There seem two models in general, which provides different measures to deal with the offender to bring
him to justice. They may be broadly termed as inquisitorial model and adversary model of justice. Both
justice systems insist upon right adjudication of the accused and protection of the innocent. But there
are basic differences as to rules of procedures in each of these systems. Each system has been developed
in its own historical setting. Each system has its own advantages and disadvantage. Each system can
serve the purpose of justice if it is aware of the disadvantages relating to it and has taken measures to
minimize it.
1. THE INQUISITORIAL MODEL
The inquisitorial model of justice relates basically to Romano Germanic System of Law, which is
also known as civil law system or continental law system. It aims to attain justice with the composite
effort of the prosecutor, the police, the defense lawyer and the court. If the purpose of justice is served
minor error in the procedure is ignored. The court can play active role in procuring evidence, in the
investigation of the case and the examination of the witness. The accused must help to the prosecutor
and the court to attain the justice. Since the court itself is active to secure justice, legal representation
from the side of accused is not regarded indispensable. This system has the following advantages.
ADVANTAGES OF INQUISITORIAL MODE OF JUSTICE
(a) The court plays substantive role in the trial to secure justice.
(b) Minor error in the procedure is ignored, if the purpose of justice is solved. Procedure is not held
vital, ultimate justice is regarded as the goal.
(c) All the component of criminal justice system, i.e. the police, the prosecutor, the defense lawyer,
the court and the accused must help to secure justice. So, the accused has no right to silence.
(d) Any distortion of evidence, dubious practice followed by the accused or by the lawyers can be
easily detected with the effort of the court.
DISADVANTAGES OF INQUISITORIAL MODE OF JUSTICE
(a) Participation of the court in the inquisition of the case may lead it to biased attitude.
(b) Right to privacy of the accused is denied and that the accused is exposed to express everything
which he need not express keeping in view of the merit of the case.
(c) The prosecutor or the police having separate law to deal with their conduct may misuse their
power and is likely to exceed their authority, which they are not entitled to. (d) Supremacy of law
and equal treatment of the law for all segments of the society is not entertained.
2. ADVERSARY MODE OF JUSTICE
Adversary mode of justice is close to Anglo-American system and its past colonies. It advocates the
supremacy of law, that is, equal treatment of law for all segments of society. It places the court in the
neutral position equivalent to that of an umpire in a football game. Therefore legal representation from
both sides is indispensable part of this system. It insists upon due process of law. That is strict
observance of criminal procedure by the prosecutor and the police in the course of investigation and
trial. It thinks that if both parties were to act according to the rules of procedure justice can be secured.
The judge looks whether the evidence collected is in accordance with the law or not. He excludes any
evidence, which is extorted through malpractices, such as, entrapment, deception practiced on the
accused etc. It is expected that exclusion of evidence unfairly obtained leads the police or the prosecutor
to work within the limit of his power.
The neutral behavior of the judge promotes the sense of justice and fairness of the trial. The accused
has right to silence. The police must interfere upon another's affair only if he has sufficient evidence to
do so. He cannot expect any co-operation from the accused after the arrest. The accused need not co-
operate with the police and he can remain silent in the court throughout the trial. The prosecutor must
prove his guilt, ex-part beyond reasonable doubt. This system claims that it would promote the
supremacy of law, fairness in the proceedings, secures right to privacy of the individual. Individual can
work is their daily life without any fear, interference or undue encroachment upon their private life by
public officials of the state. This is very much necessary to promote justice, freedom and progress.
ADVANTAGES OF ADVERSARY MODE OF JUSTICE
(a) It insists upon strict observance of procedural law. Due process of law is regarded as the most
appropriated method to attain justice. Violation of procedure leads to exclusion of evidence in
the court.
(b) The position of the court is regarded as that of an umpire. Both parties contest in the court. The
court is to see whether the game being played before it is fair and conducive to justice or not.
(c) The representation of lawyer from both sides is indispensable.
(d) The accused has right to silence. He need not give evidence from his side. Prosecution must
prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The accused may claim benefit of doubt.
(e) Individual's right to privacy is best preserved under it.
DISADVANTAGES OF ADVERSARY MODE OF JUSTICE
(a) The accused does not help the police. The police must work on his own strength against the
accused.
(b) Too much insistence upon procedure some time may lead to acquittal of the accused and
impunity on the offence.
(c) The judge in the court as an umpire is a misleading conception. It is desirable to expect that the
judge is there to do justice and that justice is done by whatever means it is possible.
(d) Contest on technical error in the court is possible. The court is helpless to correct it.
(e) The police sometime may not be able to find sufficient evidence against the accused. He cannot
expect any help from the accused. This leads to dropping-out of the case.