Relationship Between Criminal Law And Fundamental Rights
πΈ I. Introduction
Criminal law involves the state's power to prohibit, punish, and deter conduct deemed harmful to society. It includes laws that govern arrest, investigation, trial, punishment, and detention.
Fundamental rights are constitutionally guaranteed freedoms intended to protect individuals from the arbitrary exercise of power, including criminal power.
Because criminal law directly affects life, liberty, dignity, and reputation, it must always be interpreted and applied in light of fundamental rights.
πΈ II. Core Principles Linking Criminal Law with Fundamental Rights
| Fundamental Right | Implication in Criminal Law |
|---|---|
| Right to Life and Personal Liberty (Art. 32 β BD, Art. 21 β IN) | No person can be deprived of liberty except through fair legal procedure. |
| Right to Equality (Art. 27 β BD, Art. 14 β IN) | Law enforcement must act impartially; no discriminatory treatment. |
| Protection from Arbitrary Arrest (Art. 33 β BD, Art. 22 β IN) | Accused persons must be informed of charges and allowed legal counsel. |
| Protection against Self-Incrimination (Art. 35(4) β BD, Art. 20(3) β IN) | No one can be forced to testify against themselves. |
| Protection from Double Jeopardy (Art. 35(2) β BD, Art. 20(2) β IN) | No person can be tried or punished twice for the same offence. |
| Right to a Fair Trial (implied from multiple Articles) | Criminal process must follow principles of natural justice. |
πΈ III. Landmark Cases Demonstrating the Relationship
β 1. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369 (India)
Facts:
Thousands of undertrial prisoners were languishing in Bihar jails for petty offenses without trial.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21.
Significance:
Criminal law must not be used to detain people indefinitely without trial.
Introduced public interest litigation (PIL) to ensure that criminal justice respects basic human rights.
β 2. Abdul Latif Mirza v. Government of Bangladesh, 31 DLR (AD) 33 (1979)
Facts:
The petitioner was detained under the Special Powers Act, without clear or specific allegations.
Judgment:
The Appellate Division held that preventive detention must not be arbitrary and must follow the minimum standard of reasonableness.
Significance:
Reinforced that personal liberty is protected against abuse of preventive detention laws.
Criminal/administrative detention must align with constitutional safeguards.
β 3. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597 (India)
Facts:
Maneka Gandhiβs passport was impounded without prior hearing under the Passport Act.
Judgment:
The court held that procedure affecting liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable, and not arbitrary.
Significance:
Created the doctrine that criminal procedures must comply with principles of natural justice.
Expanded the meaning of βprocedure established by lawβ under Article 21.
β 4. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP, AIR 1994 SC 1349 (India)
Facts:
A young lawyer was taken into custody without informing his family or producing him before a magistrate promptly.
Judgment:
The Court laid down guidelines for arrest, stating that the power to arrest must be used sparingly and only when justified.
Significance:
Strengthened protection under Article 22 (right against arbitrary arrest).
Reinforced that police powers under criminal law must respect personal liberty.
β 5. Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of Bangladesh, 55 DLR (HCD) 111 (2003)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged a detention order under the Special Powers Act on grounds of vagueness and lack of procedural compliance.
Judgment:
The High Court Division found that the grounds of detention were vague and non-specific, violating Article 33 of the Constitution.
Significance:
The court reiterated that fundamental rights override vague or bad-faith use of criminal statutes.
A detention order must be specific, clear, and procedurally valid.
β 6. Zahid Reza Noor v. Government of Bangladesh, 56 DLR (HCD) 609 (2004)
Facts:
A businessman was detained on suspicion of being involved in criminal activities, without concrete evidence.
Judgment:
The High Court struck down the detention as violative of Articles 27 and 32, i.e., right to equality and liberty.
Significance:
Demonstrated that criminal law enforcement cannot be based on suspicion or discrimination.
Criminal sanctions must meet constitutional standards of fairness.
β 7. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263 (India)
Facts:
This case concerned the legality of narco-analysis and lie detector tests conducted without consent.
Judgment:
Supreme Court ruled that forcible use of these tests violates the right against self-incrimination (Art. 20(3)) and the right to personal liberty (Art. 21).
Significance:
Criminal investigative tools must not violate bodily integrity or mental privacy.
Reinforced the right to remain silent.
β 8. BLAST v. Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3806 of 1998
Facts:
Challenge to the legality of corporal punishment in educational institutions and madrasas.
Judgment:
The High Court declared that caning, beating or other corporal punishment is unconstitutional, violating Articles 27, 31, and 35(5) of the Constitution.
Significance:
Though not traditional "criminal law", it dealt with state-sanctioned punitive practices.
Reinforced that punishments must respect human dignity and not amount to torture or cruel treatment.
πΈ IV. Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Right Involved | Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| Hussainara Khatoon | Art. 21 β Liberty | Speedy trial is a fundamental right |
| Abdul Latif Mirza | Art. 33 β Detention | Preventive detention must be justified and specific |
| Maneka Gandhi | Art. 21 β Liberty | Procedure must be fair, just, and reasonable |
| Joginder Kumar | Art. 22 β Arrest | Arrest must be lawful and not arbitrary |
| Mollah Ejahar Ali | Art. 33 β Fair hearing | Grounds of detention must be precise and valid |
| Zahid Reza Noor | Art. 27 & 32 β Equality, Liberty | No criminal action based on suspicion or discrimination |
| Selvi v. Karnataka | Art. 20(3) β Self-incrimination | Narco-tests and lie detectors need voluntary consent |
| BLAST v. Bangladesh | Art. 35(5) β Torture | Punishment must be human and not degrading |
πΈ V. Conclusion
The criminal justice system is a necessary tool of state power, but when unchecked, it poses a serious threat to individual freedom. The relationship between criminal law and fundamental rights is therefore one of constant tension and balance.
Fundamental rights act as a check on the misuse of criminal law.
Criminal law must conform to constitutional principles like due process, fairness, proportionality, and dignity.
Judicial oversight plays a critical role in ensuring that the criminal justice process remains within the bounds of human rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments