Criminal Law And Its Constitutional Foundations In India
I. What is Criminal Law?
Criminal law in India governs offences against the state, individuals, and public order. It defines criminal offenses, procedures for investigation and prosecution, and the punishments for such offenses.
Key Statutes:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Substantive criminal law defining offenses and penalties.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Procedural law for investigation, trial, and punishment.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Governs admissibility and relevance of evidence in criminal trials.
Special Laws – NDPS Act, POCSO Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, UAPA, etc.
II. Constitutional Foundations of Criminal Law in India
Criminal law in India is deeply rooted in the Constitution of India, particularly in the Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles of State Policy, and the distribution of legislative powers between the Union and States.
Key Constitutional Provisions:
| Article | Provision |
|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law and equal protection of laws |
| Article 20 | Protection in respect of conviction for offenses |
| Article 21 | Protection of life and personal liberty |
| Article 22 | Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention |
| Seventh Schedule | Distribution of criminal law powers (Union List & Concurrent List) |
| Article 32 & 226 | Right to constitutional remedies for enforcement of rights |
III. Core Constitutional Principles Shaping Criminal Law
Due Process of Law (Article 21)
Right Against Double Jeopardy (Article 20(2))
Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3))
Presumption of Innocence (implicit in Article 21)
Right to Free Legal Aid and Fair Trial (Article 21)
Right to be Informed of Charges and Produce Evidence (Article 22)
IV. Landmark Case Laws: Criminal Law and the Constitution
1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
Issue:
Whether the impounding of passport without a hearing violated Article 21.
Holding:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21, holding that “procedure established by law” must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Due process is now an implicit requirement.
Significance:
Transformed the interpretation of criminal procedure and liberty.
Any criminal process (arrest, detention, trial) must be fair, just, and non-arbitrary.
2. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
Issue:
Whether narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping violated Article 20(3).
Holding:
Such tests without consent violate the right against self-incrimination.
Article 20(3) protects both testimonial compulsion and mental privacy.
Significance:
Reinforced that constitutional safeguards limit investigative techniques.
Protects the dignity and bodily integrity of accused persons.
3. DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416
Issue:
Widespread custodial torture and the need for procedural safeguards during arrest.
Holding:
Issued guidelines for arrest and detention (e.g., informing family, maintaining arrest memo, medical examination).
These are now recognized as part of Article 21 rights.
Significance:
Revolutionized custodial jurisprudence.
Preventive guidelines for police powers under criminal law.
4. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172
Issue:
Whether failure to inform the accused of their rights under NDPS Act invalidates the trial.
Holding:
Accused must be informed of the right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer.
Failure to comply violates Article 21 and fair trial principles.
Significance:
Strengthened due process protections in search and seizure operations.
Demonstrated the overlap of constitutional rights and statutory procedure.
5. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, (1978) 4 SCC 494
Issue:
Conditions of prisoners in solitary confinement and undertrial prisoners.
Holding:
Article 21 includes the right to live with dignity, even in prison.
Solitary confinement and inhuman treatment violate fundamental rights.
Significance:
Applied constitutional human rights principles to prison jurisprudence.
Criminal penalties must be implemented with humane standards.
6. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, AIR 1985 SC 945
Issue:
Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC to a divorced Muslim woman.
Holding:
Criminal procedure must uphold constitutional values of gender equality and dignity.
Maintenance is a secular right and cannot be overridden by personal law.
Significance:
Asserted that criminal law remedies must align with Articles 14 and 21.
Expanded interpretation of social justice under criminal law.
7. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569
Issue:
Constitutionality of provisions under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA).
Holding:
Though preventive detention and harsh procedures were upheld in part, the Court emphasized strict procedural safeguards.
Significance:
Set limits on how far Parliament can go in enacting extraordinary criminal laws.
Upheld constitutional supremacy over punitive state powers.
V. The Balancing Act: Security vs Liberty
Anti-terror laws, sedition, and preventive detention often test constitutional limits.
Courts have struck down or limited laws violating Articles 14, 19, and 21 (e.g., Section 66A of IT Act in Shreya Singhal).
VI. Role of Judicial Review
The Supreme Court and High Courts act as constitutional watchdogs ensuring that criminal laws and procedures conform to:
Fundamental rights
Rule of law
Natural justice
Examples include striking down unconstitutional provisions, laying down arrest guidelines, and protecting vulnerable groups from misuse of criminal law.
VII. Summary Table: Key Articles and Related Cases
| Constitutional Article | Protection | Landmark Case |
|---|---|---|
| Article 14 | Equality before law | Shah Bano, Kartar Singh |
| Article 20(2) | Double jeopardy | Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay |
| Article 20(3) | Right against self-incrimination | Selvi v. State of Karnataka |
| Article 21 | Life and liberty with due process | Maneka Gandhi, DK Basu, Sunil Batra |
| Article 22 | Protection against arbitrary arrest | Joginder Kumar v. State of UP |
VIII. Conclusion
Criminal law in India is not isolated from the Constitution. On the contrary, it is deeply intertwined with constitutional principles, especially:
Due process (Art. 21)
Fair trial
Equality before the law (Art. 14)
Freedom from arbitrary detention (Art. 22)
Right against self-incrimination (Art. 20)
The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring that criminal laws and procedures are used to protect society without compromising individual liberty and human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments