Comparative Study Of Afghan Criminal Procedure And Indian/Pakistani Systems
Comparative Study of Afghan Criminal Procedure and Indian/Pakistani Systems
The criminal justice systems in Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan share some common features due to their historical ties with the British legal system, yet they diverge significantly in terms of legal practices, procedures, and governance. Afghanistan’s legal system has undergone substantial changes, especially following the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and the subsequent imposition of the new Constitution and reforms. In contrast, India and Pakistan's systems have been rooted in the British colonial legacy but have developed distinct legal frameworks due to their separate historical and socio-political contexts.
This comparative study will analyze the criminal procedure in Afghanistan alongside India and Pakistan, highlighting significant similarities and differences with respect to the prosecution process, trial procedures, evidence, rights of the accused, and more. We will also consider relevant case laws to illustrate these points.
1. General Overview of Afghan Criminal Procedure
Afghanistan's criminal justice system is primarily governed by the Afghan Penal Code (1976), the Criminal Procedure Code (2005), and other legal frameworks influenced by Islamic law (Sharia) and customary practices. Since 2001, significant reforms have been introduced, particularly to align the system with international human rights standards. Afghanistan, like many civil law jurisdictions, uses an inquisitorial system, with judges taking an active role in investigating crimes.
Investigation: Police or the intelligence services (e.g., NDS) carry out initial investigations, while prosecutors may direct further inquiries. In practice, this process has often been criticized for inefficiency and corruption.
Trial: Trials in Afghanistan can be conducted in both civil and Sharia courts, depending on the nature of the crime. In civil courts, a judge or a panel of judges oversees the case, while in Sharia courts, the judges are well-versed in Islamic law.
Rights of the Accused: The Afghan Constitution provides for basic rights, but in practice, detainees have often faced arbitrary detention, torture, and limited access to legal counsel, particularly in politically sensitive cases.
Sentencing: Sentences can vary widely, with the death penalty still legal for certain offenses (e.g., murder, espionage), though it is infrequently applied.
2. General Overview of Indian Criminal Procedure
India follows the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act as the primary legislative frameworks for criminal law. The Indian system is based on the common law tradition, inherited from British rule, and follows an adversarial system of justice.
Investigation: The police initiate investigations, and the process is overseen by magistrates in certain cases. The investigating officer (IO) has significant powers to gather evidence, conduct searches, and interrogate witnesses and suspects.
Trial: The trial process involves an adversarial approach, where the prosecution and defense represent their cases before an independent judge. India’s courts are usually divided into lower courts, district courts, and higher courts, with the Supreme Court being the highest appellate court.
Rights of the Accused: The Indian Constitution guarantees fundamental rights, including the right to legal representation, protection from self-incrimination, and the right to a speedy trial. However, delays in trials and the overburdened judiciary remain significant challenges.
Sentencing: India allows the death penalty but limits its use to the "rarest of rare" cases, as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
3. General Overview of Pakistani Criminal Procedure
Pakistan’s criminal law system is primarily governed by the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC), the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), and Evidence Act. Like India, Pakistan inherited its legal system from the British colonial period, and the country follows an adversarial system of justice.
Investigation: In Pakistan, investigations are primarily conducted by the police, with magistrates overseeing the process. The police have wide-ranging powers, though their actions are supposed to be checked by judicial oversight.
Trial: The trial process in Pakistan is adversarial. Courts follow a system of public hearings, and the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant's guilt. Pakistan's judiciary is made up of district courts, sessions courts, and the Supreme Court of Pakistan as the highest appellate body.
Rights of the Accused: As per the Constitution of Pakistan, individuals are granted rights similar to those in India. However, Pakistan's criminal justice system faces similar challenges to India, such as delays in the court process and overcrowding in prisons.
Sentencing: Pakistan also has the death penalty, though its use has been subject to moratoriums in recent years. Sentencing decisions are subject to appeal to higher courts, and the Federal Shariat Court can also review cases involving hudood laws (Islamic laws) in certain circumstances.
Key Areas of Comparison
Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial System
Afghanistan: The system leans towards inquisitorial, where judges have an active role in investigation. This means that the judge not only rules on the law but may also question witnesses and gather evidence. This has often led to a less transparent process, particularly in politically sensitive cases where security agencies may influence judicial outcomes.
India & Pakistan: Both systems follow an adversarial process, where the prosecution and defense argue their case before an independent judge. The judge is seen as a neutral arbiter, and the burden of proof rests on the prosecution.
India: State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006): In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized the adversarial system, noting that the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court criticized the trial court for failing to ensure the accused's rights during the trial, thereby reinforcing the principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proof.
Pakistan: State v. Zulfiqar Ali (2011): This case involved the question of the admissibility of electronic evidence. The Lahore High Court highlighted the adversarial nature of the process and the role of the defense in challenging the prosecution's evidence, including electronic data.
Rights of the Accused
Afghanistan: The rights of the accused are limited, especially in cases related to national security or political dissent. The legal process in Afghanistan often lacks the robust safeguards found in India and Pakistan.
India & Pakistan: Both systems afford stronger constitutional protections for accused persons, though delays and procedural issues often hamper these rights in practice. Both India and Pakistan's legal systems uphold the right to a fair trial, legal counsel, and protection against self-incrimination, although the judicial infrastructure in both countries struggles with backlogs and delays.
India: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): The Indian Supreme Court ruled that the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is not just procedural but substantive, including the right to a fair trial. This case expanded the scope of the accused's rights.
Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto v. Federation of Pakistan (1988): This case dealt with issues of personal liberty and the right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of Pakistan’s Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan stressed the necessity for legal procedures to be followed before any person is deprived of their liberty.
Death Penalty
Afghanistan: Afghanistan retains the death penalty, especially for crimes such as murder, espionage, and terrorism. While it is rarely executed, it is often used in cases involving insurgency and terrorism.
India: India has the death penalty, but it is used in very limited circumstances, and there is a significant judicial process to ensure that it is only applied in the "rarest of rare" cases, as noted in the Bachan Singh case.
Pakistan: Pakistan also retains the death penalty and has faced international pressure to abolish it, especially after its moratorium on executions was lifted in 2014. Like India, the death penalty is typically applied in extreme cases.
India: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980): The Supreme Court of India clarified that the death penalty should be imposed only in the "rarest of rare" cases, emphasizing that it should not be used arbitrarily or excessively.
Pakistan: Faisal v. State (2001): The Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the death sentence in this case, reiterating the legal conditions under which the death penalty could be justified, particularly in cases involving terrorism or extremism.
Corruption and Challenges in Enforcement
Afghanistan: One of the major challenges in Afghanistan’s criminal justice system is the widespread corruption, which affects police, prosecutors, and judges. There are concerns that this has undermined the fairness and effectiveness of criminal trials, particularly in sensitive cases.
India & Pakistan: Corruption is also a significant challenge in both India and Pakistan, though there are legal frameworks in place to address it, such as the Prevention of Corruption Act (India) and the National Accountability Bureau (Pakistan). However, corruption continues to affect the criminal justice process, especially in lower courts.
Conclusion
While Afghanistan, India, and Pakistan share historical and legal similarities due to British colonial rule, their criminal justice systems differ in terms of structure, protections for the accused, and procedural fairness. Afghanistan's system, still influenced by its recent history of conflict and Sharia law, faces unique challenges, including corruption, inefficiency, and the limitations of rights for the accused. India and Pakistan, while both having adversarial legal systems, share similar struggles with court delays, overcrowded prisons, and corruption, although they generally provide stronger protections for the rights of the accused.
Each country’s criminal justice system faces unique challenges and has its strengths and weaknesses. The use of case law in these countries shows the ongoing evolution of criminal justice practices, often influenced by both legal reform and sociopolitical pressures.
RELATED Blog
0 comments