Adversarial (Accusatorial) System in India

The legal system of a country reflects its social, political, and cultural ethos. In India, the criminal justice system follows an accusatorial or adversarial model, where justice is pursued through a contest between two opposing parties—the prosecution and the defence. This system is grounded in the principles of fairness, equality before the law, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. In this article, we will explore the origins, structure, functioning, and criticisms of the accusatorial system in India, and compare it with other judicial frameworks around the world.

Origins of the Accusatorial System in India

India’s legal system is deeply influenced by its colonial past, particularly by the British legal tradition, which introduced the adversarial system during colonial rule. The adversarial model, developed in common law countries like England and the United States, was transplanted into Indian legal institutions as part of a broader framework of British legal influence.

The Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) form the foundation of India’s criminal justice system, all of which are based on the principles of the adversarial system.

What is the Accusatorial (Adversarial) System?

In an adversarial or accusatorial legal system, the responsibility of presenting evidence, arguing the facts, and determining guilt lies with the parties involved in the dispute. The judge plays a neutral and passive role, acting as an umpire who ensures the rules of procedure are followed.

Key features of the adversarial system include:

• Presumption of Innocence: The defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Role of the Judge: The judge remains neutral, making decisions based on the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.
• Evidence and Argument: Both the prosecution and defence have equal opportunity to present evidence, question witnesses, and argue their cases.

The goal of this system is to maintain a balance between the power of the state and the rights of the individual, ensuring a fair trial by pitting the prosecution against the defence.

Structure and Functioning of the Accusatorial System in India

In India, criminal trials are governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, which lays down the procedural aspects of how an accusatorial trial is conducted. The CrPC provides the structure for trials, investigations, and the enforcement of criminal laws. The key stages of a criminal trial in India, following the adversarial system, include:

First Information Report (FIR) and Investigation

The process begins with the filing of a First Information Report (FIR), which formally records the occurrence of a crime. This is followed by an investigation, during which the police gather evidence, interview witnesses, and compile a charge sheet.

Filing of Charges

Once the investigation is complete, the police submit a charge sheet to the court if they find sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused. At this stage, the court examines the charges and decides whether to proceed with a trial.

Trial Process

The trial is the core of the accusatorial system, where the prosecution and defence present their respective cases. The trial consists of several steps:

• Framing of Charges: The court frames specific charges based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
• Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution presents evidence, examines witnesses, and tries to establish the guilt of the accused.
• Defence Evidence: The defence has the right to challenge the prosecution’s evidence and present its own witnesses and arguments.
• Cross-Examination: Both sides cross-examine the witnesses to test the credibility of the testimony.
• Final Arguments: The prosecution and defence present their closing arguments before the judge.

Judgement

After evaluating the evidence and arguments from both sides, the judge delivers a judgement, which either convicts or acquits the accused. If the accused is found guilty, the court moves on to sentencing.

Appeals

Both the prosecution and defence have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court. The appellate system provides a mechanism for reviewing the judgement and ensuring that justice has been fairly served.

What are the Principles of the Accusatorial System in India

Presumption of Innocence

One of the cornerstones of the adversarial system is the presumption of innocence. The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle safeguards the rights of the individual and ensures that the prosecution bears the full responsibility of proving the case.

Burden of Proof

In criminal trials, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which must prove the guilt of the accused. This ensures that the defendant does not have to prove their innocence, which upholds the principle of fairness.

Equality Before the Law

The adversarial system promotes equality before the law by giving both parties equal opportunity to present their cases. This principle is enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.

Fair Trial

The right to a fair trial is protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. The adversarial system is designed to ensure that every accused individual receives a fair trial, with impartial judges, access to legal representation, and the opportunity to challenge evidence.

Criticisms of the Accusatorial System in India

While the adversarial system is designed to ensure fairness and justice, it is not without its criticisms.

Delays in the Judicial Process

One of the primary criticisms of the adversarial system in India is the delays in the judicial process. Indian courts are notorious for being overburdened with cases, leading to prolonged trials and delayed justice. According to a report by the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), over 4.4 crore cases are pending in various courts across India.

Manipulation of Evidence

In some cases, the adversarial system can lead to the manipulation of evidence by either party. Since the parties control the presentation of evidence, there is a risk that evidence may be concealed or distorted to suit their interests.

Power Imbalance

The adversarial system assumes equality between the parties, but in reality, there can be significant power imbalances between the state (prosecution) and the accused. Wealthier individuals may be able to afford better legal representation, while marginalised or impoverished individuals may not have access to effective defence attorneys, despite the existence of legal aid.

False Testimonies

Another issue with the adversarial system is the use of false testimonies. Parties may bring in witnesses who provide inaccurate or fabricated evidence, which can distort the outcome of the trial.

Focus on Winning Rather Than Justice

The adversarial system is often criticised for prioritising winning over justice. Lawyers may focus more on defeating their opponents rather than uncovering the truth, leading to cases where guilty individuals are acquitted or innocent individuals are convicted.

Comparison with the Inquisitorial System

The inquisitorial system, which is followed in many European countries like France and Germany, differs significantly from the adversarial system. In the inquisitorial model, the judge plays an active role in investigating the facts and gathering evidence. The trial is more of an inquiry, where the judge takes on the responsibility of finding the truth rather than relying solely on the parties.

Role of the Judge

In the inquisitorial system, the judge leads the investigation, questions witnesses, and gathers evidence, whereas in the adversarial system, the judge is a neutral referee. This difference has led to debates about which system is more effective in ensuring justice.

Search for Truth vs. Rights of the Accused

The inquisitorial system prioritises the search for truth, sometimes at the expense of the accused’s rights, while the adversarial system places more emphasis on the rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence and the right to silence.

Conclusion

The accusatorial/adversarial system in India is a vital part of the country’s democratic legal framework. Its emphasis on the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof on the prosecution, and the rights of the accused ensures that justice is pursued fairly. However, the system also faces challenges such as delays, power imbalances, and the manipulation of evidence.

Reforming the judicial process, addressing procedural delays, and ensuring equal access to justice are necessary steps to strengthen the adversarial system in India. Ultimately, while the accusatorial system is not without its flaws, it remains one of the most robust frameworks for ensuring fairness, equality, and justice in criminal trials.