Title of the EssayProtection of Fair Trial Rights in Criminal CasesDetails of Author Name Jubair BhatiCourse & Year of Study - B.B.A. LL.B. [II Year - IV Semester]Address School of Law, Raffles University, Japanese Zone, National Highway-8, Neemrana-301705, District-Alwar, RajasthanE-mail-Id jubair.bhati@gmail.comContact Number +91-8875296213Name & Address of University School of Law, Raffles University, Japanese Zone, National Highway-8, Neemrana-301705, District-Alwar, Rajasthan

PROTECTION OF FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS IN CRIMINAL CASESKeywords: Human Rights, Magna Carta, UDHR, Fair Trial, Rule of law, Natural JusticeAbstract:Basically we could not have peace, or an atmosphere in which peace could grow, unless we recognized the rights of the individual human beings, their importance, their dignity, and agreed that was the basic thing that had to be accepted throughout the world.The horizons of human rights are galloping. After the two horrific and devastating World Wars, people began to be concerned about human rights and the protection of such rights. But before that, as early as in 1215, that venerable document, the Magna Carta, proclaimed: to none will we sell, deny or delay right or justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in its preamble states: where as it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, thus requirement is to strengthen the consciousness of individuals as well as individual states so that not a single violation of human rights go unchallenged.One such facet of the human rights is Right to Fair Trial which is commonly considered so central to our system of justice and so much a part of our legal heritage now days that to deny that people in general have any such right might seem tantamount to impugning our legal traditions as a whole. It would be unthinkable to allow destroying the essential power and duty to protect fair trial of persons accused of crimes. The raison dtre of this essay is to analyze the different legal and constitutional safeguards available which ensure a fair trial in conformity with the rule of law and natural justice.

Introduction:No freeman is to be taken or imprisoned or disseised of his free tenement or of his liberties or free customs, or outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we go against such a man or send against him save by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. To no one will we sell or deny or delay right or justice.[footnoteRef:2] [2: The Law of the Land clause of Magna Carta, 1215.]

It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffers.[footnoteRef:3] This is because the consequences of convicting an innocent person are so significantly serious that its reverberations are felt throughout a civilized society.[footnoteRef:4] For example, the sentence served by an innocent person cannot be erased by any subsequent act of annulment.[footnoteRef:5] Hence, to ensure as far as possible that no court will wrongfully convict an innocent person, an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty with the prosecution bearing the burden of establishing the facts necessary to prove guilt. [3: Letter from Benjamin Franklin to Benjamin Vaughan, 14 March 1785.] [4: Kali Ram v State of Himachal Pradesh, 1973 AIR SC 2773.] [5: Ibid., paragraph 28.]

The all-embracing principle of equality before the law[footnoteRef:6] renders the fundamental importance of presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings which has found a wide scope in the human rights established under Right to Fair Trial.[footnoteRef:7] Every person has the right to a fair trial in both criminal and civil cases, and the effective protection of human rights very much depends on the practical availability of at all times of access to independent, impartial and competent courts of law which can certainly administer justice fairly. This may perhaps make the legal pillar of democratic society respectful of the rule of law[footnoteRef:8] in order to comply with the basic structure of the Constitution of India[footnoteRef:9]. Moreover, the concept of rule of law would lose its vitality if the instrumentalities of the State are not charged with the duty of discharging their function in a fair and just manner.[footnoteRef:10] [6: The Constitution of India, Article 14.] [7: Narendra Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 2004 SC 3249.] [8: Albert V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edition, Oxford University Press, 1885).] [9: His Holiness Kesavananda Bharti Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1973 SC 1461.] [10: A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 150.]

The Right to Fair Trial flows from broader fundamental right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of, the fundamental law of the land[footnoteRef:11], the Constitution of India.[footnoteRef:12] It is a cornerstone of democratic societies. A fair trial is indispensable for the protection of other rights such as the right to freedom from torture, the right to life[footnoteRef:13], and the right to freedom of expression.[footnoteRef:14] [11: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149.] [12: T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010.] [13: The Constitution of India, Article 21.] [14: The Constitution of India, Article 19 (1) (a).]

The primary aspect which arises for the requirement of right to fair trial lies in the essence that sometimes innocent may be condemned for no reason or those who are guilty may not get a fair trial or may get a higher sentence than they deserved. Amongst such facet, it is essential to have due process i.e. just, fair and reasonable[footnoteRef:15] for a fair trial under the criminal law. Due process of law encompasses not only the right to fair trial, but also the preservation of public confidence in the administration of justice. Justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done[footnoteRef:16]. Therefore, the assurance of a fair trial by an impartial court is essential for the preservation of effective system of justice.[footnoteRef:17] [15: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.] [16: R. v. Sussex Justices, (1924) 1 KB 256 (259).] [17: Gisborne Herald Ltd. v. Solicitor General, (1995) 3 NZLR 563 (CA).]

The rules that ensure protection of fair trial defense, prosecution, accused, victim and witnesses are laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. However, there has been a rampant abuse of the criminal procedure during the court trial. Delay in procedure, loss or destruction of evidence, abuse of power by the executive, use of unlawfully obtained evidence, prosecutors improper motives, denial of the rights of victims are some of the concerns raised about the practice of criminal justice system in India. Moreover, apart from the national laws, the right to reasonable and fair trial is also a norm of international human rights law comprising of Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of HumanRights, 1948[footnoteRef:18], Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966[footnoteRef:19] (ICCPR signed by India in 1979), as well as Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950[footnoteRef:20] which are designed to protect individuals from the unlawful and arbitrary curtailment or deprivation of other basic rights and freedoms, the most prominent of which are the right to life and liberty of the person. [18: Universal Declaration of Human Rights, G.A. res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc A/810 at 71 (1948) [hereinafter UDHR].] [19: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI), December 16, 1966, entered into force March 23, 1976 [hereinafter ICCPR].] [20: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 221 [hereinafter ECHR].]

The right to a fair trial on a criminal charge is considered to start running not only upon the formal lodging of a charge but rather on the date on which State activities substantially affect the situation of the person concerned.[footnoteRef:21] In a broader sense, the diverse aspects which assess the fairness of a trial in criminal cases scale from the pre-trail rights to the hearing. [21: Manfred Nowak, U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary (N.P. Engel, Arlington: 1993) at 244.]

1. Pre-Trial Rights[1.1] Prohibition on arbitrary arrest and detention.Rule of Law, the fundamental principle of any legal system, provides for the supremacy or predominance of law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power and excludes the existence of arbitrariness, of prerogative, or even of wide discretionary authority on the part of the government.[footnoteRef:22] [22: Supra note VII. ]

Arbitrary arrest by the police authorities is one of major problem which makes the implementation of rule of law difficult. The figures released by National Crime Record Bureau reveals the conviction rate of 25.4% with charge sheeting rate of 83.3% in the year 2013.[footnoteRef:23] The data indicates that less than 50% of the accused gets convicted in the court of law and substantially resembles that arbitrary arrest and unlawful detention is being practiced heavily in the criminal justice system. Further, where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14 strikes at arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. Thus, where the fundamental right of a citizen is violated, the plea of sovereign immunity would also not be available.[footnoteRef:24] [23: National Crime Record Bureau, Figures at a Galnce-2013 (2013) < http://ncrb.gov.in/index.htm> accessed on 20 January 2015.] [24: Challa Ramakrishna Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 AP 235.]

There had been great outrage amongst the democratic society of our nation for the exercise of arbitrary power to arrest by the police authorities under Section 498 A of the I.P.C.[footnoteRef:25] which provides for the anti dowry law. It had become a well practiced mechanism by police authorities to arrest the husband and his relatives on mere lodging of an F.I.R. under Section 498 A. Finally, citing very low conviction rate in this area, the Honble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Another[footnoteRef:26]directed the state governments to instruct police "not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498A is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters (check list) provided under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. However, the law must provide expressly, by amending Section 41 and other relevant sections, if any, that merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence, no person should be arrested.[footnoteRef:27] [25: The India Penal Code, 1860, Section 498A : Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.] [26: (2014) 8 SCC 469.] [27: Law Commission of India, Report No. 177 on Law Relating to Arrest, December 2001. ]

Moreover, Article 22 (1) of the Constitution specifically provides for protection against arrest and detention in certain cases. It creates an obligation upon the police officer to communicate to the person arrested full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for such arrest forthwith. It also corresponds to Section 50 of the Cr.P.C. From the above cited point of view, the effect of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [footnoteRef:28]to practically import the concept of due process of law from the American Constitution into our jurisprudence is the necessity of the time. The fact remains that the procedure established by law which affects the liberty of a citizen must be reasonable, just and fair and should not be arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive and that a procedure which does not satisfy the said test would be in violation of Article 21. Further, any restriction placed upon a particular fundamental right need not necessarily be examined only with reference to that right but must have to answer the other fundamental rights as well if it infringes on such other rights.[footnoteRef:29] The Cr.P.C. (relating to arrest) must be examined from the above standpoint. [28: AIR 1978 SC 597] [29: R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564.]

Furthermore, the international cognizance of such rights can be found in Article 9(1) of ICCPR which provides that No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.Thus, no arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a Police Officer in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen and perhaps in his own interest that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the persons complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest.

[1.2] The prohibition of custodial torture and inhumane conditions during pre trial detention.Torture is not merely physical but may even consist of mental or psychological torture calculated to create fright and submissions to the demands or commands. The word torture in its denotative concept includes mental and psychological harassment.[footnoteRef:30] Moreover, it has become a routine fashion to misuse police for political purposes. When the threats proceed from a person in authority and that too by a police officer, the mental torture caused by it is even graver.[footnoteRef:31] The National Human Rights Commission in its report for the year 1995-1996 has urged the Government to take urgent action to separate the investigative wing of the police from its law and order wing and insulate it from political, executive and other interference. [footnoteRef:32] [30: Ibid.] [31: Arvinder Singh Bagga v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 1995 SC 117.] [32: Police Reforms in India Seven Steps to Police Reform 14-10-2008, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), accessed on 21 January 2015.]

Any form of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment would fall within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution, whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise. If the functionaries of the government become law breakers, it is bound to breed contempt for the law and would encourage lawlessness and every man would have the tendency to become law unto him thereby leading to anarchy. [footnoteRef:33] No civilized nation can permit that to happen, for a citizen does not shed off his fundamental right to life, the moment police arrests him. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be denied to convicts, under trials, detenus and other prisoners in the custody, except according to the procedure established by law while placing reasonable restrictions as permitted by law. [33: Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh, 2012 8 SCC 1.]

The very idea of a human being in custody saves for protection. The word custody implies guardianship and protective care. Even when applied to indicate arrest or incarceration, it does not carry any sinister symptoms of violation. There is a legal regime set up in India against such custodial torture and inhumane treatment. It has been held in a catena of judgments that just because a person is in police custody or detained or under arrest, does not deprive him of the fundamental rights and its violation empowers the person to move to the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.[footnoteRef:34] Article 22 provides four basic fundamental rights. These include being informed of the grounds of arrest, to be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice, preventive detention laws and production before the nearest Magistrate within 24 hrs of arrest of the person. Moreover, Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that a confession to police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and confession caused by threats from a person in authority in order to avoid any evil of a temporal nature would be irrelevant in criminal proceedings as, inter alia, provided in Section 24. Thus, the evidences collected by means of torturous act are rendered illegal and inadmissible in the court of law. [34: N. V. Paranjape, Criminology and Penology with Victimology (6th edition, Central Law Publishing, 2014).]

Further, Section 46 and 49 of the Cr.P.C. protect those under custody from torture who are not accused of an offence punishable with death sentence or life imprisonment. Sections 50-56 of the Cr.P.C. are in consonance with Article 22. Section 54 of the Cr.P.C. is a provision that corresponds to any infliction of custodial torture and violence. According to it, when an allegation of ill treatment is made by a person in custody, the Magistrate is then and there required to examine his body and shall place on record the result of his examination and reasons thereof.[footnoteRef:35] It gives them the right to bring to the courts notice any torture or inhumane treatment they might have been subjected to and have themselves examined by a medical practitioner on their own request.[footnoteRef:36] A compensatory mechanism has also been used by the courts.[footnoteRef:37] When the Magistrate does not follow procedure with respect to entertaining complaint of custodial torture, it calls for interference by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.[footnoteRef:38] [35: A.K. Sahdev v. Ramesh Nanji Shah, 1998 Cri.L.J. 2645.] [36: Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasanttraghunath Dhoble,2004 (1) GCD 812.] [37: J.Y. V Chandrachud & V.R. Manohar, The Code of Criminal Procedure,(18th edition, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa, Nagpur, 2006).] [38: Mukesh Kumar v. State, 1990 Cr. L.J. 1923.]

Further, Article 7 of the ICCPR (ratified by 153 countries) prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or Punishment and is a norm of customary international law that also belongs to the category of jus cogens.[footnoteRef:39] Article 5 of the UDHR also puts ban on torture and other ill treatment. Apart from these, Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions, for example, bans violence of life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" as well as "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The use of force to obtain information is specifically prohibited in Article 31 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. [39: Blacks Law Dictionary, 9th edition, jus cogens: A mandatory or peremptory norm of general international law accepted and recognized by the international community as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.]

Thus, the accused might agitate to ameliorate the cause of the poor and the downtrodden, but, the social humiliation that is meted out to him is quite capable of destroying the heart of his philosophy. Torture withers away the very essence of life as enshrined under Article 21. 2. The Hearing[2.1] Right to a fair hearing.The single most important criterion in evaluating the fairness of a trial is the observance of the principle of equality of arms between the defense and the prosecution. Equality of arms, which must be observed throughout the trial, means that both parties are treated in a manner ensuring their procedurally equal position during the course of a trial. It would be difficult to identify in advance all of the situations that could constitute violations of this principle. They might range from denying the accused and/or counsel time to prepare a defense to excluding the accused and/or counsel from an appellate hearing when the prosecutor is present.The very core principle of natural justice[footnoteRef:40] warrants that the adjudicatory process has to be in consonance with the doctrine of audi alteram partem[footnoteRef:41] which means that no one should be condemned unheard. The principle goes back to many centuries in our law and appears in a multitude of judgments of judges of the highest authority of various countries. The Honble Supreme Court of India did not lag behind in its progressive approach to this rule. In Seimens Engineering and Manufacturing Company of India Limited v. Union of India and another[footnoteRef:42], the apex court was of the view that the rule of audi alteram partem must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirement of law. Further, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India[footnoteRef:43]no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner before taking the impugned action. The Supreme Court held that it was violation of audi alteram partem. In the case of failure of natural justice, the court will quash the order and ordinarily remit the matter to the concerned body to decide it again after a fresh hearing.[footnoteRef:44] [40: Kandav.Government of Malaya, [1962] A.C. 322 at 337.] [41: Manohar v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2012 (13) SCC 14.] [42: AIR 1976 SC 1785] [43: Supra Note XXIX. ] [44: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v.Commissioner of Income Tax,AIR 1955 SC 65;Shivji Nathubhaiv.Union of India,AIR 1960 SC 606.]

Thus, the question is whether the persons in custody are the real culprits. This has to be established by the prosecution beyond the reasonable doubt and thus, without availing the equal opportunity to be heard for both the sides, it is just impossible to ascertain.[2.2] Right to a presumption of innocence.One of the basic tenets of our legal system is the benefit of the presumption of innocence to the accused till he is found guilty at the end of a trial on legal evidences. Even the rights of the accused are sacrosanct in a democratic society. Recently in 2012, in Pathan Hussain Basha v. State of A.P.[footnoteRef:45], the apex court was of the view that Article 20 of theConstitution of Indiacontains a presumption of innocence in favor of a suspect and that the concept of deeming fiction is hardly applicable to criminal jurisprudence. Further, in Sher Singh v. State of Haryana,[footnoteRef:46]the court held that the concept of presumption of innocence is so deeply ingrained in all Common Law legal systems so as to render it ineradicable even in India, such that the departure or deviation from this presumption demands statutory sanction. [45: (2012) 8 SCC 594] [46: AIR 2015 SC 15]

Further, even International Law bestows its imprimatur thereto. Article 11 (1) of the UDHR states "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." Article 14(3)(g) of the ICCPR, assures as a minimum guarantee that everyone has a right not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt. Article 6 of the ECHR firstly, promises the right to a fair trial and secondly, assures that anyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Thus, the presumption of innocence has been recognized so as to constitute a basic human right.[2.3] Right to SilenceThe Right to Silence is a principle of common law and it means that normally courts or tribunals of fact should not be invited or encouraged to conclude, by parties or prosecutors, that a suspect or an accused is guilty merely because he has refused to respond to questions put to him by the police or by the court. In Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar and Another[footnoteRef:47], it was held that if a person does not offer any explanation itself may not be sufficient to conclusively hold that he was guilty of commission of the offence, but the legal position is that the same would be considered to be his Right to Silence. [47: (2007) 10 SCC 433]

Further, the Constitution guarantees every person right against self incrimination under Article 20(3) which provides that No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. The Right to Silence has been further guaranteed in Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani[footnoteRef:48]that no one can forcibly extract statements from the accused that has the right to keep silent during the course of interrogation. Again in Smt. Selvi & ors. v. State of Karnataka[footnoteRef:49], the Supreme Court declared narco analysis, brain mapping and lie detector test as a violation of Article 20(3). [48: AIR 1978 SC 1025] [49: (2010) 7 SCC 263]

[2.4] Right to Speedy Trial.Speedy justice is the sine qua non of criminal jurisprudence. The Right to Speedy Trial is a part of just and reasonable procedure implicit under Article 21 of the Constitution.[footnoteRef:50] This right has been actuated in the recent past and the courts in a recent series of decisions opened new vistas of fundamental rights.[footnoteRef:51] A procedure which keeps such large numbers of people behind bars without trial so long cannot possibly be regarded as reasonable, just or fair so as to be in conformity with the requirement of Article 21 of the Constitution. The law enacted by the legislature and as administered by the courts must radically change its approach to pre-trial detention and ensure reasonable, just and fair procedure.[footnoteRef:52] [50: A.R. Antulay v. R.S.Nayak, (1992) 1 SCC 225.] [51: Law Commission of India, Report No. 154 (August 1996).] [52: Hussianara Khatoon and Others v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 81. ]

[2.5] Right to Free Legal Aid.Opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities.[footnoteRef:53] It is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 to provide free legal aid to an indigent accused person and the obligation does not arise only when the trial commences but also attaches when the accused is for the first time produced before the magistrate, as also when remanded from time to time. The Supreme Court cast a duty on all magistrates and courts to inform the indigent accused about his right to get free legal aid.[footnoteRef:54] [53: Law Weekly, Legal Aid in Our State, (1978) 91 LW (JS) 93.] [54: Suk Das & Anr. v. U.T. of A.P., AIR 1986 SC 991.]

Further, Article 39A of the Constitution confers a constitutional right to every accused person who is unable to engage lawyer and secure free legal services on account of reasons such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado situation.[footnoteRef:55] [55: Rajoo v. State of M.P., (2012) 8 SCC 553.]

ConclusionIn the aforementioned background, the treatment of the accused of a crime provides a concrete demonstration of how far State is committed to respect the human rights. The right to fair trial is not limited to specific procedure. It is a comprehensive right demanding a due process in procedural law. It includes an adversarial trial system, presumption of innocence, independent judges, and knowledge of the accusation, trail and evidence in the presence of the accused, adequate legal representation to respond to the charges, prohibition of double jeopardy, right to remain silent, right to be notified of the charged and so on. Recently in 2014, the World Justice Project released the Rule of Law Index 2014 report, which analyzed the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.Out of the 99 countries that were compared, India ranked 66th globally.[footnoteRef:56] This suggests that despite of having myriad of detailed provisions to shield human rights, resistance developed by law enforcement agencies against them has made those rights and provisions unrealistic. [56: World Justice Project Report, Rule of Law Index 2014, < http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/> accessed on 22 January 2015.]

Further, the quality of a nations civilization can be largely measured by the methods it uses in the enforcement of criminal law.[footnoteRef:57] Thus, the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Joginder Singh v. State of U.P.[footnoteRef:58]and D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal [footnoteRef:59] should be incorporated in the code so as to keep the check against arbitrary arrests and unlawful detentions. Till then, the reformative approach in criminal justice system of India remains a distant sight. [57: Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., AIR 1994 SC 1349.] [58: Ibid.] [59: AIR 1997 SC 610]

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books1. Albert V. Dicey, An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th edition, Oxford University Press, 1885).2. Daniel Moeckli & Sangeeta Shah, International Human Rights Law (2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2014).3. Ian Brownlie & Guy S Goodwin-Gill, Brownlies Documents on Human Rights (6th Edition, Oxford University Press, 2010).4. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (7th edition, LexisNexis, 2014).5. N. V. Paranjape, Criminology & Penology with Victimology (6th edition, Central Law Publishing, 2014).6. Nicholas Vincent, Magna Carta: A very Short Introduction (1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2012).7. Richard Clayton & Hugh Tomlinson, Fair Trial Rights (1st edition, Oxford University Press, 2001).

Statutes1. The Constitution of India, 1950.2. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.4. The Indian Penal Code, 1860.5. The Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.

International Conventions1. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950.2. Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949.3. International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, 1976.4. The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984. 5. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Internet Documents1. 154th Report of Law Commission of India on the Code of Criminal Procedure published in 1996.2. 177th Report of Law Commission of India on Law Relating to Arrest published in 2001.3. Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative Report on Police Reforms in India - Seven Steps to Police Reform published in 2008, 4. National Crime Record Bureau Report on Figures at a Galnce-2013 published in 2014. 5. World Justice Project Report on the rule of law index 2014 published in 2014.

Page 2 of 14