Constitutional Challenges In Criminal Law
Criminal law in India must conform to the Constitution of India, especially to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III, such as:
Article 14 — Right to Equality before the law
Article 19 — Protection of certain freedoms (like speech, movement)
Article 20 — Protection in respect of conviction for offences (e.g., protection against ex post facto laws, double jeopardy, self-incrimination)
Article 21 — Protection of life and personal liberty
Article 22 — Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention
Challenges arise when criminal statutes or procedures allegedly violate these constitutional rights. Courts balance state power to enforce law and order against individual freedoms and due process.
Key Constitutional Challenges with Case Law
1. Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1994)
Issue: Validity of certain provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) and the Constitutionality concerning fundamental rights.
Facts: Kartar Singh challenged TADA provisions on grounds of violating Articles 14, 19, and 21.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of TADA but emphasized that laws must be read strictly to protect fundamental rights.
Affirmed that preventive detention and special procedures could be constitutionally valid if reasonable safeguards exist.
Reaffirmed that Article 21 is not absolute but any curtailment must follow procedure established by law.
Significance: Balanced state interest in counter-terrorism with constitutional protections.
2. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
Issue: Whether the procedure established by law under Article 21 needs to be "just, fair, and reasonable".
Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without a proper hearing.
Held:
The Supreme Court expanded the scope of Article 21 to include substantive due process.
Held that any law depriving personal liberty must be fair and not arbitrary, making procedure established by law a requirement of natural justice.
Emphasized that Articles 14, 19, and 21 are interconnected.
Significance: Revolutionized the protection of personal liberty in criminal law procedures and strengthened constitutional scrutiny.
3. Delhi Laws Act Case — State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952)
Issue: Validity of West Bengal Security Act's special powers for preventive detention.
Facts: The Act allowed preventive detention without trial.
Held:
Supreme Court struck down provisions that violated Articles 14 and 21.
Held that the power of preventive detention must be subject to reasonable safeguards.
Significance: Early judgment on limitations of preventive detention laws under constitutional scrutiny.
4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)
Issue: Constitutionality of the death penalty under Article 21 and the “rarest of rare” doctrine.
Facts: Bachan Singh challenged his death sentence.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty but restricted its use to the “rarest of rare” cases.
Laid down guidelines ensuring procedural fairness and proportionality.
Significance: Established safeguards in capital punishment, balancing state power and fundamental rights.
5. Joginder Kumar v. State of UP (1994)
Issue: Protection against illegal detention and custodial torture under Article 21.
Facts: Joginder Kumar was detained without following procedural safeguards.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued guidelines to prevent illegal detention and custodial torture.
Emphasized that police must follow legal procedures and inform detainees of grounds of arrest.
Significance: Strengthened protections against police abuse under constitutional law.
Summary
Constitutional challenges in criminal law typically revolve around ensuring fairness, equality, and protection of life and liberty.
The courts have played a vital role in interpreting fundamental rights to safeguard individuals against arbitrary state action.
Cases like Maneka Gandhi and Bachan Singh serve as milestones in evolving constitutional safeguards in criminal law.
Judicial oversight ensures that even in matters of crime and punishment, constitutional principles remain supreme.
RELATED Blog
0 comments