Impact Of Caste, Class And Gender Bias In Criminal Adjudication
1. Concept: Bias in Criminal Adjudication
Bias in criminal adjudication refers to the influence of social hierarchies or prejudices on judicial outcomes. Bias can arise due to:
Caste: Lower-caste or marginalized communities may face discrimination in arrest, investigation, trial, or sentencing.
Class: Poor defendants may lack access to legal counsel, bail, or fair representation.
Gender: Women or LGBTQ+ individuals may experience victim-blaming, stereotyping, or harsher judgments.
Impact on Criminal Justice:
Pre-Trial Stage: Arrests, detention, and investigation can be biased against marginalized groups.
Trial Stage: Evidence may be interpreted subjectively, and credibility assessments may reflect prejudice.
Sentencing Stage: Social bias may lead to harsher punishments for marginalized communities or leniency for powerful groups.
Legal Protections in India:
Article 14: Equality before law and equal protection of laws.
Article 15 & 17: Prohibition of caste-based discrimination and untouchability.
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Right to legal aid (Section 304), fair trial, and impartial judiciary.
Internationally, similar protections exist under UDHR (Article 7) and ICCPR (Articles 2 and 14).
2. Detailed Case Laws
Case 1: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (SC, 2003)
Facts: Dalit victim’s complaint of assault and custodial harassment by police.
Findings:
Supreme Court acknowledged caste bias influencing police investigation and delay in filing charges.
Directed fast-track investigation and protection of witnesses.
Significance: Highlights how caste bias affects investigation and adjudication, emphasizing protective judicial intervention.
Case 2: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Facts: Maneka Gandhi challenged arbitrary deprivation of passport, highlighting procedural fairness.
Findings:
Expanded the scope of Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), requiring fair procedure.
Although not a direct caste/class case, established principle that arbitrary state action influenced by social or political biases violates rights.
Significance: Judicial recognition that procedural fairness is essential to counter systemic bias.
Case 3: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997, SC)
Facts: Custodial violence disproportionately affected lower-caste and poor individuals.
Findings:
Supreme Court issued directives for police accountability and monitoring.
Observed that caste and class biases contributed to custodial discrimination.
Significance: Established systemic accountability mechanisms to prevent bias in criminal adjudication.
Case 4: State of Karnataka v. Dr. Praveen Bhatt (2010)
Facts: Gender bias in handling sexual harassment complaints; victim’s credibility challenged due to social status and gender stereotypes.
Findings:
High Court recognized gender bias in judicial assessment of evidence.
Court emphasized reliance on objective evidence rather than societal prejudices.
Significance: Highlights the need to eliminate gender bias in evaluating victims and witnesses.
Case 5: Dalit Woman Rape Case – State of Madhya Pradesh v. XYZ (2015)
Facts: Dalit woman accused of sexual assault; police delayed registration and influenced victim’s testimony.
Findings:
Supreme Court invoked SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to expedite trial and protect the victim.
Court acknowledged how caste and gender intersect to disadvantage marginalized victims.
Significance: Illustrates intersectional bias in criminal adjudication and need for targeted protections.
Case 6: Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994, SC)
Facts: Poor defendant arrested without proper investigation or bail, highlighting class-based bias.
Findings:
Supreme Court laid down guidelines on arrest and detention emphasizing preventive safeguards for marginalized classes.
Stressed the right to legal aid and protection against arbitrary arrest.
Significance: Shows class bias can affect access to fair trial and procedural justice.
Case 7: Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan (1997, SC)
Facts: Workplace sexual harassment; judicial recognition of gender discrimination.
Findings:
Established Vishakha Guidelines for prevention of sexual harassment.
Reinforced the need for bias-free adjudication in cases involving women.
Significance: Important precedent addressing gender bias in institutional and criminal proceedings.
3. Key Legal Principles Derived
Caste Bias: Courts recognize systemic discrimination against Dalits and marginalized castes in police and trial processes.
Class Bias: Poor defendants are vulnerable to arbitrary arrest, denial of bail, and inadequate representation.
Gender Bias: Women and LGBTQ+ individuals face victim-blaming, credibility issues, and discriminatory sentencing.
Intersectionality: Bias often intersects—e.g., a Dalit woman is disadvantaged due to both caste and gender.
Judicial Safeguards:
Fast-track courts for marginalized victims.
Strict adherence to procedural fairness and evidence rules.
Protective legislation (SC/ST Act, Vishakha Guidelines).
Conclusion
Caste, class, and gender bias permeate criminal adjudication, affecting:
Investigation quality.
Trial fairness.
Sentencing outcomes.
Judicial interventions in India have sought to:
Protect marginalized victims and defendants.
Ensure impartial evaluation of evidence.
Enforce equality before law.
The case laws above demonstrate both the existence of bias and judicial mechanisms to counteract it.
RELATED Blog
comments