Human Rights Frameworks Shaping Criminal Justice in India

Every time a person is arrested, prosecuted, or imprisoned, the State exercises its most coercive power over an individual. What keeps that power in check? Human rights. Whether it is the accused sitting in a lock-up waiting for bail, a victim seeking justice after a crime, or an undertrial prisoner awaiting a trial that never seems to arrive – each of these people is entitled to protections that no State action can lawfully override. In India, those protections are drawn from two interconnected sources: the Constitution of India and the international human rights framework. Understanding how these two systems interact is central to any serious engagement with criminal justice advocacy.

What are human rights in the context of criminal justice? 🔗

Human rights are not privileges – they are entitlements that attach to every person by virtue of their humanity alone. In the criminal justice context, this means that even a person accused of the gravest crime retains fundamental rights. The accused cannot be tortured. The victim cannot be silenced or ignored. The undertrial prisoner cannot be held indefinitely without charge. These are not merely moral positions – they are legal obligations that bind the State.

The National Human Rights Commission of India describes the core commitment this way: ratifying nations commit to protecting essential human rights, including life, dignity, equality, freedom from torture and arbitrary detention, and fair trial rights, while governments are obligated to implement measures and provide remedies to ensure these rights are upheld. The criminal justice system is both the mechanism through which the State enforces the law and the arena where these rights are most at risk of being violated. This makes the alignment between human rights norms and criminal procedure not just desirable, but essential.

The international framework: ICCPR and ICESCR 🔗

The two foundational international covenants that shape criminal justice human rights globally are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both were adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 16, 1966, and together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), they form what is known as the International Bill of Human Rights.

The ICCPR and its criminal justice provisions 🔗

The ICCPR is the covenant most directly relevant to criminal justice. It commits its 175 state parties to respect civil and political rights – including the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from arbitrary arrest, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence. Key provisions with direct bearing on criminal procedure include Article 9 (prohibiting arbitrary detention), Article 14 (guaranteeing equality before courts and fair trial rights), and Article 15 (no punishment without law). India ratified the ICCPR on April 10, 1979, though it came with significant reservations – notably on Article 9, which concerns compensation for unlawful arrest. India’s position has been that its domestic legal system already provides adequate remedies, though courts have increasingly stepped in to fill the gaps through judicial interpretation.

Crucially, India did not sign the Optional Protocols to the ICCPR. This means individuals cannot bring complaints directly to the UN Human Rights Committee – the treaty body that monitors ICCPR compliance. India’s fourth periodic ICCPR review took place in July 2024, its first since 1997, covering a wide range of issues including detention conditions, fair trial standards, and custodial deaths.

The ICESCR and its relevance to criminal justice 🔗

The ICESCR is less obviously connected to criminal procedure but its relevance is real. It guarantees rights to education, health, work, and an adequate standard of living – rights that directly affect who ends up in the criminal justice system and in what condition. The principle of progressive realisation under the ICESCR means the State must continuously work toward fulfilling these rights, even if resource constraints apply. The ICESCR has 173 state parties as of 2025, and its framework informs debates around legal aid, prison conditions, and rehabilitation – all of which are central to a rights-compliant criminal justice system.

India’s Constitution mirrors this dual structure. Part III (Fundamental Rights) closely aligns with ICCPR provisions, while Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy) reflects the social and economic commitments of the ICESCR. As one analysis of these covenants notes, this parallel structure shows how India’s constitutional framework anticipated the international human rights system – predating ratification by over two decades.

The Indian Constitution as a human rights charter for criminal justice 🔗

Long before India ratified the international covenants, the Constitution of India laid down a comprehensive framework of rights that operates as the primary legal protection within the criminal justice system. Several provisions are of direct relevance.

Article 21: The cornerstone 🔗

Article 21 states: “No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” As interpreted by the Supreme Court over decades, the scope of Article 21 has expanded far beyond its text. It now encompasses the right to a fair trial, the right to a speedy trial, freedom from custodial torture, the right to legal aid, and the right to live in dignity – including for convicts and undertrials. Any restriction on Article 21 must also meet the tests of fairness and reasonableness under Articles 14 and 19.

In the landmark case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), the Supreme Court held that a procedure affecting life or personal liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable – not merely technically legal. This single interpretation transformed Article 21 from a narrow procedural guarantee into a substantive rights provision that powers much of India’s criminal justice jurisprudence.

The right to a fair trial 🔗

The right to a fair trial is embedded within Article 21 and reinforced by Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 22 (protections against arrest and detention). Article 39A, inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976, further mandates free legal aid to ensure that justice is not denied on grounds of economic disability. The Supreme Court has read Article 39A as a component of the fair procedure required under Article 21, effectively elevating it to the level of a fundamental right. In practice, this means that a conviction obtained without offering legal aid to an accused who cannot afford a lawyer is constitutionally invalid.

The presumption of innocence – derived from the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – is also central to the fair trial framework. It is explicitly recognised under Article 14(2) of the ICCPR, which India has ratified, and Indian courts have consistently upheld it. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that individual liberty cannot be curtailed until guilt is conclusively established.

Protection against arbitrary detention 🔗

Article 22 of the Constitution provides a set of procedural safeguards against arrest and detention: the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest, the right to consult a legal practitioner, and the requirement that a detained person be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours. These protections directly mirror the ICCPR’s Article 9. The Supreme Court has held that pre-trial detention exceeding the maximum sentence that would have been imposed on conviction is itself a violation of Article 21 – a principle that has driven the release of thousands of undertrial prisoners through public interest litigation.

Rights of the accused, undertrials, and convicts 🔗

Human rights in the criminal justice system are not limited to those who are eventually found innocent. They apply equally to the accused, the undertrial, and even the convicted prisoner. The reason is straightforward: rights are not conditional on innocence. They exist to constrain State power at every stage.

The right to a speedy trial is one of the most critical – and most frequently violated – rights in India’s criminal justice landscape. In the foundational case Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court took note of the alarming number of people imprisoned for years without trial, and held that prolonged detention without trial directly violated Article 21. The Court has since reiterated that no procedure which fails to ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as just, fair, or reasonable under Article 21. The right to speedy trial applies to every stage of the legal process – investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, and revision.

The right to free legal representation for those who cannot afford it is equally non-negotiable. In Khatri v. State of Bihar (1981), the Supreme Court clarified that the right to legal representation begins when the accused is first produced before a Magistrate – not merely at the commencement of trial. A conviction obtained without offering legal aid to an indigent accused is liable to be set aside.

Rights of victims in the criminal justice system 🔗

For a long time, victims occupied a peripheral role in India’s criminal justice system – reduced, in practice, to being witnesses in a case run by the State. This has changed significantly, particularly with the introduction of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, which came into force on July 1, 2024.

Victim-centric reforms in the Indian criminal justice system have generally developed around three clusters of rights: participatory rights, the right to information, and the right to compensation. The BNSS builds on this structure with several notable additions. Victims now have the right to receive a copy of the FIR free of cost, to be informed of investigation progress within ninety days, and to be heard before a prosecutor can withdraw a case – a significant recognition of the victim as an active stakeholder rather than a passive informant.

Victim compensation under BNSS 🔗

Section 396 of the BNSS mandates that State Governments, in coordination with the Central Government, establish schemes for compensating victims or their dependents who require rehabilitation. Section 397 requires all hospitals – public and private – to provide immediate, free first-aid and medical treatment to victims of rape, sexual assault, and offences covered under the POCSO Act, without waiting for any police or court order. Victims can also directly appeal orders of acquittal, discharge, or inadequate sentencing – a major shift from the earlier framework where only the State could prefer such appeals. These reforms signal a shift from a purely punitive model of criminal justice toward one that acknowledges the State’s obligation to the victim as a rights-holder.

The State’s dual obligation 🔗

What emerges from this framework is that the State carries a dual obligation in the criminal justice system. On one hand, it must ensure that its coercive machinery – the police, the prosecution, the prisons – respects the rights of every person it comes into contact with, including the accused. On the other hand, it must ensure that those harmed by crime receive recognition, protection, and redress. These obligations are not in conflict – they are both expressions of the same underlying principle: that human dignity is non-negotiable, regardless of which side of a criminal proceeding a person finds themselves on.

This is precisely what the international human rights framework insists upon. The ICCPR binds each ratifying state to protect rights related to life, liberty, equality before courts, and the right to a fair trial – all of which the Indian legal system is required to uphold, both as a matter of domestic constitutional obligation and as a matter of international treaty commitment.

Challenges in implementation 🔗

The gap between the rights framework on paper and its implementation in practice remains significant. India’s prison population continues to be dominated by undertrials – those who have not been convicted but remain in custody, often for periods exceeding the maximum sentence for the alleged offence. Legal aid mechanisms, while constitutionally mandated, remain underfunded and inconsistent in quality. Victim compensation schemes exist across states but suffer from procedural delays, lack of awareness, and inadequate funding. India also has not ratified the UN Convention Against Torture – a gap that human rights organisations have repeatedly flagged in the context of custodial deaths and police brutality.

These implementation failures are not merely administrative shortcomings – they are human rights violations. Every day an undertrial spends in jail beyond what is legally justified is a violation of Article 21. Every victim who cannot access the compensation they are entitled to is being denied their rights under the law. The constitutional and international framework provides the tools; the challenge for advocates and legal practitioners lies in using them effectively.

What do you think? If the rights of the accused and the rights of victims are both grounded in the same human rights framework, how should the criminal justice system balance these when they appear to be in tension – for instance, when granting bail to an accused might endanger a victim? And given that India has not signed the Optional Protocols to the ICCPR, what practical avenues remain for individuals whose rights have been violated by the State to seek accountability beyond domestic courts?

References

1. https://nhrc.nic.in/international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights-(iccpr)
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Civil_and_Political_Rights
3. https://hrdc.net/human-rights-human-rights-instruments-in-india/
4. https://www.manoramayearbook.in/india/special-articles/2024/07/19/iccpr-upsc.html
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Covenant_on_Economic,_Social_and_Cultural_Rights
6. https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty-under-article-21-a-timeline/
7. https://ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in/hrdp03/chapter/right-to-fair-trial-under-the-constitution-of-india-part-2/
8. https://lawbhoomi.com/right-to-fair-trial-in-india/
9. https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/article-21-of-the-constitution-of-india-right-to-life-and-personal-liberty/
10. https://p39ablog.com/2023/11/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-13-victims-rights/
11. https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/bharatiya-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-&-code-of-criminal-procedure/victim-compensation-scheme
12. https://lawbhoomi.com/documents-relating-to-protection-of-human-rights-udhr-iccpr-and-icescr/