Charter Challenges In Criminal Cases
1. Understanding Charter Challenges in Criminal Cases
A Charter Challenge generally refers to a constitutional challenge raised by an accused person alleging that their fundamental rights under the Constitution (or the Charter of Rights in other countries) were violated during the criminal process.
In India, these challenges are mostly framed under:
Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 19: Right to Freedom
Article 20: Protection in respect of conviction for offenses
Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
Objectives of Charter Challenges:
Protect fundamental rights of accused persons.
Ensure fair trial and due process.
Prevent abuse of police and prosecutorial powers.
Check legislative or procedural provisions that may be unconstitutional.
Common Grounds for Charter Challenges in Criminal Cases:
Illegal arrest and detention (violation of Article 21)
Unreasonable search and seizure (violation of Article 20 and 21)
Denial of legal aid (violation of Article 21)
Violation of equality before law (Article 14)
Ex post facto criminal laws (Article 20)
2. Important Case Laws on Charter Challenges
Case 1: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Facts: Maneka Gandhi's passport was impounded without providing reasons. She challenged it under Article 21.
Decision: SC held that Article 21 includes the right to a fair procedure, not just liberty. Any law affecting personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Impact on criminal law: Any criminal procedure violating due process (e.g., arbitrary detention or unfair investigation) can be challenged as unconstitutional.
Case 2: Kathi Raning Rawat v. State of U.P., AIR 1952 SC 124
Facts: Challenge against detention under preventive detention laws without proper procedure.
Decision: SC emphasized that preventive detention laws must satisfy constitutional safeguards, and arbitrary detention is a violation of Article 21.
Impact: Established a precedent for challenging illegal detention in criminal cases.
Case 3: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
Facts: Undertrials languishing in jail for periods longer than maximum sentence prescribed for their alleged offenses.
Decision: SC held that the right to speedy trial is part of Article 21. Prolonged detention without trial is unconstitutional.
Impact: Landmark case that led to reforms in undertrial incarceration and strengthened constitutional safeguards for accused persons.
Case 4: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610
Facts: Challenge regarding custodial torture and deaths in police custody.
Decision: SC laid down guidelines for arrest and detention, including proper recording, medical examination, and informing relatives.
Impact: This case is foundational for procedural safeguards in criminal investigations and a classic example of a successful charter challenge protecting Article 21 rights.
Case 5: Selvi v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2010 SC 1974
Facts: Challenge against involuntary narcoanalysis, polygraph, and brain-mapping tests on accused persons.
Decision: SC held that such tests violated Article 20(3) and Article 21 (protection against self-incrimination and personal liberty).
Impact: Established that constitutional rights cannot be compromised even in criminal investigations, strengthening the principle of voluntary consent.
Case 6: State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447
Facts: Confession before a police officer was used in trial.
Decision: SC ruled that confessions must be voluntary and before magistrate, otherwise they violate Article 20(3).
Impact: Reinforced the protection against self-incrimination in criminal law.
Case 7: Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2014 SC 1289
Facts: Excessive arrests under Section 498A IPC without due verification.
Decision: SC held that arrest should not be automatic and emphasized that preventive arrest must respect Article 21.
Impact: This judgment curtailed police misuse of power, protecting constitutional rights of accused persons.
3. Key Principles from Case Laws
Due Process and Fair Trial (Articles 14 & 21): Every accused has the right to a fair procedure; arbitrary arrest, detention, or punishment is unconstitutional.
Protection Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)): No person should be compelled to provide evidence against themselves.
Speedy Trial (Article 21): Delays in criminal proceedings violate fundamental rights.
Custodial Safeguards: Arrests and interrogations must follow strict legal guidelines to prevent abuse.
Consent and Voluntariness: Evidence obtained through coercion, torture, or involuntary tests cannot be used.
4. Modern Applications
Preventive detention cases are often challenged under Article 21 and 22.
Digital evidence collection (like phone tapping or surveillance) is now challenged under Article 21 for privacy violations.
Bail denial challenges often rely on Charter principles (fairness, personal liberty).
Custodial violence or unlawful detention frequently triggers D.K. Basu-type remedies.
✅ Conclusion:
Charter challenges in criminal cases serve as checks against state overreach, ensuring that the fundamental rights of accused persons are protected. Landmark cases like Maneka Gandhi, Hussainara Khatoon, D.K. Basu, Selvi, and Arnesh Kumar illustrate how Indian courts have consistently reinforced constitutional safeguards in criminal law.
RELATED Blog
comments