Presumption of innocence

By:
Alok Bagri
Introduction
In these times, when India is seeing a severe increase in crime, particularly heinous crimes
such as rape, the government has felt the need to adopt a more deterrent approach to justice
delivery. But does justice come at the expense of one's fundamental human rights?
Legislators have lately proposed clauses that place the accused on a pedestal and require him
to establish his innocence in order to be released, rather than the prosecution dismissing the
proof. Certain fundamentals in the criminal justice system, however, must never be neglected.
They will only lead to a miscarriage of justice if they are ignored. One such premise is the
presumption of innocence.
I will attempt to investigate legislative provisions regarding the burden of proof and its
reversals in criminal offences, as well as analyze the rationale for such rules in light of the
significance of the presumption of innocence. Also important is the rise and significant
demand for including human rights in criminal proceedings. This article contends that
international human rights concepts are particularly relevant to the interpretation of reverse
burdens, and that stronger requirements must be met before a reverse burden may be justified.
Addressing the existing arbitrariness of legislative reversal of the onus of proof would be a
critical step forward in that direction if India is to build a human rights-based approach to
criminal justice.
What is presumption of innocence?
Justice is never incompatible with rights. Justice is founded on the anvil of equal rights and
obligations; so, in a criminal trial, the rights of all sides must be balanced in order to
accomplish the goals of justice. Being careless or prejudiced in favour of anyone's right will
result in a miscarriage of justice. The right of a defendant/convict/accused to be assumed
innocent unless proven guilty is a basic component of our criminal justice system. Though
not officially codified in the Indian penal code, there are laws that operate on this premise.
Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act provide that anybody seeking a court's
decision on a legal right or responsibility must show the existence of the facts asserted. As a
result, the burden of establishing fact is always on the one who declares it. However, many
rules and statutory restrictions weaken this concept by shifting the burden of proof to the
accused rather than the prosecution. The common law maxim, “ei incumbit probatio qui
dicit, non qui negat “(the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who
denies) was confirmed by the Supreme Court, burden of proof lies on the party asserting it
and never on the party denying it. 
The idea of presumption of innocence states that an individual is always presumed to be
"innocent unless proven guilty." This was initially spelled down by jurist Blackstone, who
stated that it is preferable to let ten criminal people go free than to allow one innocent person
suffer. In the historic decision of Woolmington vs Dpp, the House of Lords ruled that the
presumption of innocent is the golden thread of criminal law and cannot be endangered. The
Indian Supreme Court passionately upheld this, and it is now a well-established concept of
Indian jurisprudence. The presumption of innocence does not have the same effect as other
criminal law presumptions. Unlike other presumptions, the presumption of innocence does
not deal with the burden of proof. There is no burden relieved from the defendant per se. As a
result, the presumption of innocence has no effect on shifting the burden of proof to the
prosecution. Rather, the prosecution bears the initial burden. As a result, the defendant's
status quo is preserved under the presumption of innocence.
The Supreme Court concluded in the case of Noor Aga Khan vs. State of Punjab that, while
not specifically specified in the constitution, presumption of innocence provides a powerful
background to the notion of justice, in ensuring faith in the long-term integrity and security of
a judicial system.
What is the need and importance of presumption of innocence?
In the contemporary day, convictions are evading the basic foundations of human rights
standards by condemning people based on mere suspicion rather than facts. Any country's
criminal justice system reflects how the society runs. The state's criminal justice system has
far-reaching consequences since it demonstrates the country's liberal and democratic
approach to dealing with the weak. Such abilities cannot go unchecked in the world's greatest
democracy and must be exercised with caution. Thus, the presumption of innocence serves
not just as a right but also as a guideline for how the state should use its coercive powers.
Putting innocent people through the rigours of criminal law is an affront to the fundamental
principles of democracy and fairness. The court has also considered the issue of resources, as
not all parties have equal resources and cannot prove their innocence while the proceedings
are ongoing. Conviction for a criminal offence usually results in some type of punishment
being imposed on the offender. Such consequences invariably infringe on basic rights, such
as the right to personal property (fines), the right to liberty (imprisonment), and the right to
privacy (community sentence, imprisonment). Furthermore, a guilty person is subjected to
possibly severe mental horrors as a consequence of public reactions, as well as physical
tortures as a result of the harsh circumstances of the jail cells.
If the State is to limit an individual's basic rights, every conviction must be the outcome of a
fair trial. It is a corollary of the right to liberty and promotes other rights such as the right to
quiet. The presumption of innocence is also important in balancing the State's greater
authority and means against those of ordinary persons. Trials are fact-finding settings, not
places for mistakes or disasters. Most critically, the presumption of innocence protects an
individual's right not to be wrongly convicted. The accused is being forced to establish his
innocence and reject a presumption of guilt. A reverse onus clause is not justified by a
balance of probability criterion since the duty on the accused is ultimate, meaning that failure
to meet this burden would end in his conviction. Such a system appears to be excessively
oppressive and harsh on the accused. In criminal law, the burden of proof plays a significant
role in the trial phase. It aids in the conduct of a free and fair trial by keeping both sides on
the same playing field. When the burden of proof is placed on the incorrect party, it taints the
court's decision and eventually leads to a miscarriage of justice.
It is important to emphasize that the rules governing the burden of proof and the standard of
proof in criminal trials are essential because they preserve individual freedom and serve as a
barrier against oppression. Reversing the burden of evidence makes the accused a presumed
criminal, neglecting his individual liberty and dignity and so breaching Article 21, which
grants an individual the right to live in dignity. Wrongful convictions deprive an individual of
his or her dignity and respect in society.
The right to a fair trial is a collection of rights, the most important of which is the right to the
presumption of innocent. The presumption of innocence serves as the foundation for a
defendant's right to stay silent and enjoy the privilege against self-incrimination. The right to
silence is a procedural safeguard meant to shield citizens from the use of coercive
governmental authority. It is a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence in our nation that
it is for the prosecution, and only the prosecution, to establish all of the elements of the
offence with which the accused has been charged. The accused is not required to open his
mouth or engage into his defence until the prosecution has discharged its task and
convincingly shown the accused's guilt.
It is also proposed that a fair trial would be one in which bias or prejudice for or against the
accused is eradicated. Erroneous convictions harm the public interest; the guilty may just be
unlucky enough to satisfy the rigorous criteria of the standard of proof. If the courts already
think that the individual on trial is guilty, the trial will be based on prejudices rather than
evidence.
International obligation and standpoints.
Today, India is growing its worldwide footprint. In such a circumstance, the need to obey,
and not only follow, the fundamental principles of human rights become an urgent necessity.
We cannot stand strong only by raising our economic standards; we must stand even stronger
while providing human rights to our inhabitants.
Human rights moral concept seeks to define the essential criteria for each human being to
have a minimum good existence. Human rights seek to define both the negative and positive
criteria for living a minimum good life, such as the right to health care and the right not to be
tortured. This aspiration has been enshrined in various declarations and legal conventions
issued over the last fifty years, beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) and continuing, most notably, with the European Convention on Human Rights (1954)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). These three articles,
taken together, constitute the centerpiece of a moral system that many believe is capable of
supplying the modern geopolitical order with what amounts to an international bill of rights.
Human rights are defined as rights to life, liberty, equality, and dignity provided by the
constitution or enshrined in international accords as enforced by courts. In defining the idea
of human rights, the courts have therefore given the broadest possible reach.
The presumption of innocence is a human right that cannot be waived under any
circumstance. Articles 6 (Right to Recognition Before the Law), 7 (Equality Before the Law),
10 (Right to a Fair Trial), and 11(2) (Right to Presumption of Innocence) of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights raise even more serious issues for the accused in the current
instance. Because they are vital to human life not just on a national level, but also on an
international scale. Furthermore, the concerned rights under the ICCPR include Article 9
(Right against arbitrary trial and imprisonment) and Article 14 (Presumption of innocence for
the accused and right to a fair trial). It has already been established that conventions that are
in accordance with the constitution might be regarded to be incorporated by the state.
Henceforth, while sticking to local law, courts may also consider the international framework
in order to limit violations of rights to the greatest extent possible.
Are media trials suppressing presumption of innocence?
“Despite the significance of the print and electronic media in the present day it is not only
desirable but the least that is expected of the persons at the helm of affairs in the field, to
ensure that the trial by the media does not hamper fair investigation by the investigating
agency and more importantly does not prejudice the right of defence of the accused in any
manner whatsoever. It will amount to travesty of injustice if either of this causes impediments
in the accepted judicious and fair investigation and trial. Presumption of innocence of an
accused is a legal presumption and should not be destroyed at the very threshold through the
process of media trial and that too when the investigation is pending. In that event, it will be
opposed to the basic rule of law and would impinge upon the protection granted to an
accused under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It is essential for the dignity of the
courts and is one of the cardinal principles of the rule of law in democratic society that the
criticism or even the reporting particularly in sub judice matters must be subjected to check
and balances so as not to interfere with the administration of justice.”1
The freedom of the press is essential for a democratic system since it serves the public's view
without prejudice. The basic goal of the media is to help people by disseminating accurate
information on issues of public interest. A free media serves as a watchdog for the
government and is the only avenue through which people may communicate with the
government. The media has a clear impact on people's thinking and may shape their
judgments. It may establish and pursue a national agenda. The media has such a powerful
influence on society that it must never lose sight of its duties and commitments to people. As
a result, they are required to follow ethical norms in order to ensure the validity of the news
and objective yet acceptable reporting. They are also obligated to consider the impact of their
reporting on society and the individuals or institutions involved, as the case may be. Rather of
conducting trials, the media should be objective in disseminating information to society. The
problem peaks when there has been substantial media coverage of the subjects under
consideration. The facts and comments broadcast by the media appear to harm the interests of
the parties in a matter that is now ongoing in court. As a public service, the media is expected
to operate as a watchdog for society, whereas the judiciary is expected to protect citizens'
rights.
Both the judiciary and the media are critical to the advancement of civil society, and their
roles should be distinct. However, in recent years, the media has begun intervening in judicial
proceedings and has pioneered the notion of investigative journalism in order to shape public
opinion. As a result, the subject of Media Trial is important and must be addressed. Press
freedom should not be abused to the detriment of individuals or society as a whole. Because
freedom under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution is not unlimited, the media should
be held accountable for their actions and freedom.
Conclusion
The effect of law must always be considered when determining whether a law is beneficial or
harmful. Today, the presumption of innocence has been watered down under the guise of
1
Manu Sharma v State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)6 S.C.C. (India).
public interest and expedited justice. In order to achieve the purpose of deterrence, India's
courts are continuously disregarding the rights of the accused. Special efforts are required to
make the criminal justice system more effective and to reduce the nation's crimes, but this
must be done while keeping the concepts of justice and proportionality in mind. State action
must never be arbitrary and must always be solely for the sake of justice. The court must take
bolder measures to achieve and reaffirm the notion of presumption of innocent as a basic
human right, as well as feature it more prominently within Article 21.
Bibliography
https://blog.ipleaders.in/presumption-of-innocence-and-reverse-burden-of-proof-maintaing-
the-rights-of-the-accused-in-the-current-crime-epidemic/#Conclusion
https://www.lawaudience.com/guilty-until-proven-innocent-are-media-trials-suppressing-
rule-of-law/
https://www.ijlsi.com/paper/presumption-of-innocence-and-dilution-of-facts-by-media-trials/
https://www.ijlsi.com/paper/presumption-of-innocence-and-dilution-of-facts-by-media-trials/