Non-Adversarial Procedure of Justice System
Sandhiya M
Chennai Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College, Pudhupakkam.
INTRODUCTION
The criminal justice system is a network of agencies and processes established by governments to control crime and aim to punish for violation of law. It has four pillars, which are investigation by police, prosecution by prosecutors, court proceedings to determine the punishment and prisons focused on reforming and rehabilitating the prisoners. In the criminal justice system, there are two types, which are the adversarial and non-adversarial justice systems. The non-adversarial system is also called Inquisitorial justice system. Let us see in detail the non-adversarial justice system below.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Around the world, the criminal justice system will be different from one country to another in order to protect the peace and maintenance. The common law countries like the US, UK, and India are strictly following the adversarial system, and the civil law countries like France and Germany are following the Inquisitorial System.
In the adversarial justice system, prosecution proves the guilt of the defendant in front of the judge. The witnesses are asked questions by the judge, but they do not investigate. but in the non-adversarial justice system, the judges conduct the public investigation and play an active role.
ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM
This system is followed by the common law countries like India, the US, and the UK. In this system, the prosecution side tries to prove the guilt, and the defence tries to defend it before the neutral judge by following the procedural laws and the law of evidence. The court will give a judgment based upon the arguments and the evidence.
India follows the adversarial justice system, and the main features are the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, the right to legal representation, the limited role of the judges, and more. In the system of adversarial justice, the lawyers are focused on the winning of the case instead of finding the truth and the person who has money. They will afford the better legal representation; this can create the imbalance. However, it provides the fairness by allowing both parties to present their cases, and another feature of this system is that it is transparent.
NON-ADVERSARIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
non-adversarial justice systems have several distinctive characteristics. In these systems, the court takes an active role in investigating the case, often preferring that the investigation proceeds without the presence of counsel. Relationships between the parties involved in the dispute are considered. The system is designed to ascertain the truth and is characterized by extensive pre-trial investigations and interrogations. Non-adversarial justice systems are commonly used in civil law legal systems, such as those in France and Italy. In the United States, these systems apply to criminal procedure issues, but not substantive law matters.
NON-ADVERSARIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA
Despite India's adversarial system, Inquisitorial elements have been incorporated into the legal system on multiple occasions. In the case of Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and others v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeira, the Supreme Court established key principles indicating that an individual does not gain ownership of a property if they are permitted to reside there without charge. Even after years or decades of possession, such an individual does not obtain any rights or interests in the property in question. Furthermore, a caretaker, watchman, or servant cannot claim any interest in the property, regardless of the duration of their possession. It is required that the caretaker or servant relinquish possession immediately upon request.The Supreme Court referred to the goal of an Inquisitorial process, which is to find the truth, when it held that the pursuit of truth should be the compass for the entire legal process. The Supreme Court criticized courts for adopting a purely adversarial process in Ram Chandra v. State of Haryana because it inevitably results in a distortion because of the competition between the opposing counsels. Therefore, the court’s adoption of Inquisitorial elements would aid in lessening the parties' reliance on advocates and safeguarding weaker sections before the court, who are always at a disadvantage in terms of resources.
The Inquisitorial System is a method of legal practice that places significant responsibility on judges to oversee the investigation and trial processes. This system contrasts with the adversarial approach seen in countries like the United States, where the prosecution and defense present their cases to an impartial judge or jury. Here’s a deeper look at the Inquisitorial System:
In this system, the judge actively investigates the case by questioning witnesses, gathering evidence, and ensuring all relevant facts are brought to light. This differs from the adversarial system, where the judge or jury remains passive and evaluates evidence presented by the opposing sides.
One of the key features of the Inquisitorial System is that statements from witnesses recorded during the investigation are admitted into court. This means that evidence collected during the preliminary investigation phase plays a crucial role in the trial. Additionally, there are minimal exclusionary rules, and hearsay evidence is often accepted, which is not the case in adversarial systems.
Before the trial begins, the judge, the accused, and the victim participate in hearings. During these hearings, the parties involved can suggest questions for witnesses, but it is the judge who ultimately asks these questions. This setup removes the need for cross-examination, a hallmark of the adversarial system, and places the judge in a more proactive role in seeking the truth.
However, the Inquisitorial System has several drawbacks. The active involvement of judges in the investigation process can lead to biased attitudes, as they might develop preconceived notions about the case. In countries like France, where magistrates and prosecutors can switch roles, there is a concern that the accused may not receive a fair trial. This is because the roles of investigation and prosecution are closely linked, potentially creating a conflict of interest.
Moreover, the right to privacy of the accused can be compromised. The accused might be required to reveal information that could harm their defence, thus infringing on their privacy. This is a significant concern, as it can pressure the accused into disclosing information that may otherwise remain confidential.
In summary, the Inquisitorial System prioritizes the judge's role in uncovering the truth through active investigation and questioning. While it can lead to thorough and efficient trials, it also poses risks related to fairness and privacy for the accused. This system's structure aims to ensure that all relevant facts are considered, but it must balance this goal with safeguarding the rights of all involved parties.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ADVERSARIAL AND NON-ADVERSARIAL (INQUISITORIAL) JUSTICE SYSTEMS
1. Role of the Judge
Adversarial Justice System: The judge maintains a neutral stance, remaining unbiased and refraining from showing any personal interest in favoring one party over the other.
Inquisitorial System: The judge takes an active role in seeking the truth of the case. They gather evidence, investigate facts, and question witnesses. The judge oversees both the trial and investigation processes, making decisions based on their findings. Even with this active involvement, judges must ensure that the process remains fair.
2. Evidence Control
Adversarial System: The responsibility for evidence collection lies with the parties involved, including police, law enforcement, defense, prosecution teams, forensic officers, and private investigators. These parties gather and preserve evidence during the investigation phase, which is then presented in court. Judges assess the admissibility and credibility of the evidence.
Inquisitorial System: The judge takes charge of collecting and documenting evidence, ensuring its authenticity and verification. They protect the evidence from tampering and make it available to all parties involved. All parties have the opportunity to examine and challenge the evidence.
3. Involvement of Lawyers
Adversarial Justice System: Lawyers play a vital role in advocating for their clients' interests. They prepare cases by gathering evidence, filing motions, pleas, and appeals, and actively represent their clients throughout the trial.
Inquisitorial System: Compared to the adversarial method, the role of attorneys is relatively limited in the Inquisitorial System. They don't actively represent their clients; instead, they help the court gather information and make arguments. Rather, they present evidence and offer legal advice, with the judge playing a more significant role in gathering and evaluating evidence. The judge's viewpoint is more important than the attorneys' arguments.
CONCLUSION
Judges are under a lot of pressure to actively participate in the investigation and disclosure of the truth under the Inquisitorial justice system. Judges in this system are in charge of obtaining evidence, interrogating witnesses, and carefully reviewing all relevant information. A more thorough grasp of the issue may result from this hands-on approach, but it also raises questions about potential biases because the judge's active engagement may compromise their objectivity. Furthermore, because the accused can be asked to divulge information that could affect their defence, their right to privacy may be violated. Despite these obstacles, the Inquisitorial System prioritizes finding the truth and ensuring that all parties have access to the evidence in order to ensure that justice is served.
REFERENCE
3. https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ijlmhs20§ion=89
6. https://updates.manupatra.com/roundup/contentsummary.aspx?iid=7721