ABSTRACT
“Never punish an innocent person, but let hundreds go unpunished.” One aspect of the right to equality (Article 14) is the right to be fairly represented in a criminal proceeding. According to Article 20, “no one shall be found guilty of any offense other than a violation of a law that was in effect at the time the act charged as an offense was committed, nor shall he be punished more severely than what might have been imposed under the law that was in effect at the time the offense was committed.”Justice denied is justice postponed. This assertion is especially pertinent to criminal processes, even though it is true for the majority of legal conflicts. The accused suffers greatly emotionally from being under the Damocles sword of a prison term. Every defense attorney can vouch for the detrimental impact that existential doubt may have on clients over the course of months or years. After a protracted trial, the accused will frequently lose her job, her marriage will be in ruins, or her once-thriving business will be destroyed. Many people have stress-related illnesses or despair. In certain situations, even a final acquittal may seem like a Pyrrhus victory. Laws protect the rights and privileges of those who are accused of crimes, including the right to a fair trial. Originally (usually starting in the 18th century) limited to the trial itself, several nations started to expand these rights to include the time leading up to and following the trial in the second half of the 20th century.
INTRODUCTION
The social component of the Indian independence struggle, which in turn grew out of an understanding of the predicament of the Indian people, was largely responsible for the ideology that characterizes the Constitution. The Constituent Assembly’s members’ experiences and the prevailing needs of the moment greatly influenced the Constitution’s practical provisions. The Constituent Assembly’s members weren’t working alone.[1] They drafted the Constitution with consideration for Indian requirements and circumstances in mind. A living document is the Constitution. The defense of fundamental rights is one of the democratic tenets on which it is founded. According to Y.K. Sabarwal, the Chief Justice of India at the time, in the ruling quoted as C.J. in I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu[2], he stated that the legality concept, which calls on the courts to uphold the constitutionalism principle read laws with the presumption that lawmakers wouldn’t want to enact laws that violate basic rights. Although the legislature can impose restrictions on basic rights, laws that uphold these rights cannot be implicitly abolished by subsequent legislation. The core principles that under pin the rule of law are embodied in Articles 14, 19 and 21.
A person’s freedom, which is a fundamental right, is restricted when they are arrested or detained. The legislature no longer has the authority to enact laws that impact basic rights as envisioned by the founding fathers and as outlined and supported by the Apex Court, the defender of fundamental rights. Renowned legal scholar Nani A. Palkhivala[3]said that the Indian Constitution is a well developed organism, not a jellyfish. The vocative Preamble serves as its identifying card, giving it a unique identity and integrity. Its identification cannot be destroyed throughout the amending procedure. He stated that the Parliament’s will is unquestionably not the people’s will when it comes to constitutional revisions. The idea is completely confused if Parliament is equated with the people. The electorate considers many variables when selecting their representatives, none of which are related to constitutional revisions. This has repeatedly been demonstrated in nations where a referendum is used to determine the will of the people in response to a proposal by Parliament to amend the Constitution.
According to Sri H.M. Seervai,[4] “does it mean that a person is not part of ‘we the people’ if he is not educated at least to the level of reading and writing the minimum, so that he can buy the official gazette and read the proposed statute? Even if all citizens are expected to have access to these official gazettes, how is the public to know which section and which issue of the gazette the proposed modification or statute is published in? Therefore, simply passing legislation and amending the Constitution or laws does not accomplish
The Apex Court in Minerva Mills v. Union of India[5]had expressed the view: If by a constitutional amendment, the application of Article 14 and 19 is with drawn from a defined field of legislative activity, which is reasonably in public interest, the basic framework of the Constitution may remain unimpaired. But if the protection of those Articles is withdrawn in respect of uncatalogued variety of laws, fundamental freedoms will become a ‘parchment in a glass case ‘to be viewed as a matter of historical curiosity
The Supreme Court established the theory of the fundamental structure of the constitution in Keshvananda Bharati v. State of Kerala[6]to evaluate the legality of constitutional revisions that might affect Part III of the document. Article 21 was given a tight textual meaning in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras[7], but it was given a broader reading in Menaka Gandhi (above), and A.K. Gopalan was ruled to be no longer a good law. Similarly, Gopalan’s perspective was strongly criticized in R.C. Cooper v. Union of India[8], and the interpretation offered in Gopalan’s case (above) was rejected in Sakal Papers Private Limited v. Union of India, which was resolved prior to the Bank Nationalization case. Additionally, the court in this case has determined that while considering the nature and content of fundamental rights, the court must not be too astute to interpret the language in a literal sense so as to whittle them down. The court must interpret the Constitution in a manner which would able the citizens to enjoy the rights guaranteed by it in the fullest measure.
[1]G. A. (1972). The Indian Constitution :Cornerstone of nation (pp. Pp.XII, XIV)
[2] AIR2007 SC861:(2007)2SCC
[3]We the People. UBS Publishers, 2004. p.208.
[4]Constitutional Law of India. 4th ed., vol. 1. pp. 415, 416.
[5] (1980)3 SCC625
[6] AIR1973 SC1461:(1973) 4SCC225
[7] AIR1950 SC27 :1950Cri.LJ1383:1950 SCR88
[8]AIR1970SC546(also popularly known as Bank Nationalization case)