Fair trial under Criminal justice system main feature
of Fair trial.
Case law- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat & Zahira Habibulla H. Shiekh and Another v.
State of Gujarat 2004
Submitted By- Sarthak
[Link].
Roll Number- 232073
Semester- 5th {B}
Subitted To- Dr. Sohnu
(Assistant Professor in Law)
Acknowledgement
I would like to express my profound gratitude to Dr. Sohnu, for their contributions
to the completion of my project titled “Fair trial under Criminal justice system
main feature of Fair trial. Case law- Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of
Gujarat & Zahira Habibulla H. Shiekh and Another v. State of Gujarat 2004.”
I would like to express my special thanks to our mentor Dr. Sohnu for hs time and
efforts he provided throughout the year. Your useful advice and suggestions were
really helpful to me during the project’s completion. In this aspect, I am eternally
grateful to you.
I would like to acknowledge that this project was completed entirely by me and not
by someone else.
Sarthak
{[Link].B}
5th SEMESTER
SECTION-B
Introduction:-
A fair trial is an open trial by an impartial judge in which all parties are treated equally. The right
to fair trial is one of the fundamental guarantee of human rights and rule of law, aimed at
ensuring administration of justice.
Fair trial includes fair and proper opportunities allowed by law to prove innocence. The right to
a fair trial is one of the most fundamental principles of justice in any democratic country, and
India is no exception. As one of the world’s largest democracies, India upholds the concept of a
fair trial as an essential cornerstone of the rule of law. The fair trial ensures that no individual is
deprived of their liberty or rights without proper legal procedures, and no one is subjected to
wrongful conviction or punishment.
The principle of natural justice is the root cause behind the rule of Fair Trial which is
incorporated in present Justice System. The principle of Natural Justice is based on the Good
Conscience , equity and Fairness and so the principle of Fair Trial. The Fair Trial principle can
be traced back to the Lex Duodecim Tabularum means the law of the twelve tables. There were
many international meetings regarding this Fair Trial rule and today the present form of this rule
is outcome of that meetings. Certain privileges as Right to Free Legal Aid, Right to Public
Hearing , Right to be Heard by Competent and Impartial Judges etc., are gift of Principle of Fair
Trial.
Constitutional Foundation of the Right to Fair Trial
India’s Constitution enshrines the right to a fair trial as an essential part of the legal framework.
The cornerstone of this right is found in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees
the protection of life and personal liberty. Article 21 reads:
“No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure
established by law.”
This provision has been interpreted by the courts to mean that any procedure affecting an
individual’s life or liberty must be just, fair, and reasonable. The right to a fair trial is an integral
part of this guarantee. Thus, a fair trial ensures that any person who faces charges of a criminal
offence is treated justly and equitably, allowing the legal system to balance both the rights of the
accused and those of the victim and society.
Moreover, Article 14 of the Constitution ensures that no person shall be denied equality before
the law, which includes the right to a fair and impartial trial. This provision establishes the basis
for judicial impartiality and equality before the courts, ensuring that all individuals, regardless of
status, have the same access to justice.
MEANING
Fair Trial Law means a neutral Trial conducted to accord each party to the proceeding their due
process rights. The right to a Fair Trial applies to a civil and criminal proceedings. A Fair Trial
presupposes full justice within human limitations.
In the case of , Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa 1 And, Jaikrishna Manohardas Desai
and Anr. V. State of Bombay,2
Three principles of criminal jurisprudence which are well settled are as :
That the onus ties affirmatively on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt and it cannot derive any benefit from weakness or falsity of the defence version
while providing its case;
That in a criminal trial the accused must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved to
be guilty; and
That the onus of prosecution never shifts.
The fair trial rule allows a person to present his defence along with right to free legal aid. A
guilty person is presumed innocent until his guilt is proved and right to liberty and equality of
accused person is protected by providing right o fair trial
1
1977 AIR 170, 1977 SCR (1) 439.
2
[1960] 3 S.C.R. 319. 324.
A Trial by a neutral and fair court, conducted so as to accord each party the due process rights
required by applicable law; of a criminal trial, that the defendant’s constitutional rights have
been respected.
The definition of the principle is describing five basic elements , which must be incorporated
when the Principle of Fair Trial is ascertained. These are:
Key Features of a Fair Trial in India
A fair trial is not just about the right of the accused; it encompasses a set of principles that
ensure justice is done in a transparent and unbiased manner. Let us explore the principal
features of a fair trial in India:
Right to Legal Representation
One of the key features of a fair trial is the right to legal representation. Every person accused
of a crime in India has the right to defend themselves and to be represented by a lawyer of their
choice. If the accused cannot afford a lawyer, the court must appoint a legal aid counsel at the
state’s expense. This provision ensures that justice is accessible to all, irrespective of their
financial resources.
any accused person has the right to defend themselves through a counsel of their choice.
The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 further strengthens this right by ensuring free legal
aid for the poor and disadvantaged.
Presumption of Innocence
Another critical feature of a fair trial is the presumption of innocence. According to this
principle, every person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This
principle is foundational to the justice system and is derived from the Latin maxim Ei incumbit
probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies on the person who asserts, not the one
who denies). In India, this is explicitly stated in Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which India has ratified.
Indian courts have consistently upheld this principle, emphasising that no one can be deprived of
their liberty without proper evidence proving their guilt. In the case of Dataram Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s liberty cannot be curtailed until
their guilt is conclusively established.
Right to a Public Hearing
The right to a fair trial in India also includes the right to a public hearing. This ensures
transparency in the judicial process and helps build public confidence in the system. Article 14
of the ICCPR stipulates that all persons should be entitled to a public hearing, ensuring that the
trial is conducted in an open court, barring certain exceptions like cases involving minors or
sensitive matters.
In the landmark case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court
underscored that both the accused and the victims have the right to a fair
hearing, which requires the public to have access to the trial proceedings.
Right to an Impartial Judge
An impartial and competent judge is crucial to a fair trial. The Indian Constitution mandates
judicial independence, ensuring that judges are not subject to external influence or bias.
The BNSS also emphasises the need for judges to be impartial, ensuring that no individual or
entity influences the outcome of a case.
The Supreme Court of India has, on several occasions, stressed that a trial cannot be deemed fair
if the judge harbours any bias. In Shyam Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1973), the Court ruled
that even the appearance of bias could be grounds for challenging a judicial decision.
Right to Be Informed of the Charges
The accused must be fully informed of the charges against them. This right is enshrined
in Article 22 of the Indian Constitution, which mandates that the accused be informed of the
reasons for their arrest and the nature of the charges in a timely manner. BNSS provides that any
arrested person must be told the grounds for their arrest and be allowed to contact a lawyer.
This principle ensures that the accused can adequately prepare their defence and prevents
arbitrary detention or prosecution.
Right to Fair and Speedy Trial
The right to a speedy trial is crucial for maintaining the credibility of the justice system. Delays
in trial can lead to prolonged detention and cause injustice to the accused. Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty, which includes the right to a timely
trial.
In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the Supreme Court held that prolonged detention
without trial violated the right to life under Article 21. The Court reiterated the need for timely
trials in ensuring justice for both the accused and the victim.
Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses and Present Evidence
A fair trial gives the accused the right to challenge the prosecution’s case by cross-examining
witnesses and presenting their own evidence. BNSS guarantees the accused the opportunity to
defend themselves and produce evidence to support their case.
In Mohd. Hussain Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi, the Supreme Court
emphasised that failure to allow the accused to cross-examine key witnesses undermines the
fairness of the trial and can lead to the quashing of convictions.
Judicial Activism
The Indian judiciary has played an active role in expanding the scope of fair trial rights through
landmark judgments. For instance, in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court
recognized that a speedy trial is essential for justice.
Adversary system:
India has adopted adversary system of criminal trial based on accusatorial method. According to
this system, any dispute as to the criminal responsibility of a person is to be resolved by the
criminal court after giving a far and adequate opportunity to the disputants to the place before the
court their respective cases , The court is not less than a umpire and is not to take side or to show
any favour or disfavour to any party. The adversary of system of trial enables an impartial and
competent court to have a proper view of the case
Expeditious Trial:
every inquiry or trial shall be held as expeditiously as possible , and in particular, when the
examination of witnesses has once begun, the same shall be continued from day to day until all
the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless the court finds adjournment of the same
beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded .A criminal trial which
drags on unreasonably for long time is not a fair trial. Speedy trial is an essential ingredient of
reasonable , fair and just procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional
obligation of the state to devise such procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused.
All Pervasive Concept of Fair Trial:
The major object of code being to provide for fair trial in the administration of criminal justice ,
it is but natural that all the provisions of the code are attuned to this goal. The concept of fair
trial has permeated every nook and corner of BNSS
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, 2004
The case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v State of Gujarat (2004), widely known as the "Best
Bakery Case," is a crucial landmark in Indian law concerning the right to a fair trial under Article
21 of the Constitution.
Facts-
• The incident arose from the 2002 Gujarat riots following the Godhra train burning,
where a mob set fire to the Best Bakery in Vadodara, resulting in the brutal deaths of
14 people including members of Zahira's family and bakery workers.
• In the aftermath, Zahira, a primary eyewitness, initially testified against the accused
but later retracted her statements in the trial court.
• Multiple witnesses turned hostile, leading to the acquittal of all 21 accused
individuals due to the lack of credible evidence.
• Zahira later claimed she was coerced and threatened into giving false testimony,
raising grave concerns about the influence of political pressures on the justice
process.
• When her appeal to the Gujarat High Court was dismissed, Zahira, supported by
human rights organizations, approached the Supreme Court.
Issues-
• Witness Protection and Tampering: The credibility of Zahira's claims of coercion and
the broader issue of witness vulnerability, especially in politically sensitive criminal
cases.
• Fair Trial Violation: Whether the judicial environment and state machinery in Gujarat
allowed for a fair, unbiased trial as mandated by Article 21 of the Constitution.
• Integrity of the Justice System: Assessment of lapses on the part of investigators,
prosecutors, and judicial officers that resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
• Political and External Influence: The role of powerful politicians and external
pressures in influencing witnesses and undermining trial fairness.
Judgement-
The Supreme Court analyzed the circumstances and found that the trial failed to meet the
standards of a fair trial. Key observations and directives included:
• Fundamental Right to Fair Trial: The Court emphasized that fair trial is an inviolable
constitutional right under Article 21, requiring justice to be dispensed free from coercion,
bias, or external interference.
• Witness Tampering and Hostile Environment: The court found Zahira's allegations of
witness intimidation and hostile environment credible, pointing to deficiencies in state
and police protection for witnesses. The vulnerability of witnesses in such contexts was
sharply condemned.
• State Machinery Criticism: The Court criticized state authorities for their investigative
and prosecutorial failures, noting the miscarriage of justice stemmed from systemic and
institutional shortcomings.
• Order for Re-investigation and Retrial: The Supreme Court ordered a re-investigation and
transferred the case from Gujarat to Maharashtra under Bombay High Court jurisdiction
to ensure impartiality and credibility.
• Inquiry into Conflicting Testimony: Recognizing Zahira’s fluctuating statements at
different stages, the Court ordered an inquiry into the circumstances and possible
inducements, though evidence was inconclusive regarding specific parties responsible for
coercion.
The Zahira Habibullah Sheikh judgement transformed Indian criminal procedure by
underscoring witness safety, judicial impartiality, and state duty toward securing justice,
setting significant precedent for interpreting the scope of "fair trial" under Article 21.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat
& Ors – Best Bakery Case
The Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors case, popularly known as the
“Best Bakery Case,” is one of the most significant judgements in Indian legal history. It is a
landmark in addressing the vulnerabilities of witnesses, ensuring the integrity of the justice
delivery system, and upholding the right to a fair trial. Originating from the communal riots in
Gujarat in 2002, the case sheds light on systemic flaws, political interference, and the need for
judicial reforms to safeguard the rule of law.
Facts of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors case arose from the gruesome
violence during the Gujarat riots in 2002. The riots followed the burning of the Sabarmati
Express Coach S-6 in Godhra, where 59 people were killed. This incident sparked widespread
communal violence across the state, leading to numerous deaths and destruction.
The “Best Bakery” incident in Vadodara was one such case of violence. On March 1, 2002, a
mob attacked the bakery, resulting in the death of 14 individuals, including women and children.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh, a survivor of the incident, was the star witness in the trial. Initially,
Zahira identified the accused perpetrators of the violence.
However, during the trial in a Gujarat court, Zahira and several other witnesses turned hostile,
leading to the acquittal of all 21 accused on June 27, 2003. Zahira later claimed that she had been
coerced and intimidated into giving false testimony, sparking outrage over the fairness of the
trial. The case was subsequently brought before the Gujarat High Court and later escalated to the
Supreme Court of India.
Legal Issues Raised
The Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors case raised several critical issues:
1. Witness Protection and Tampering: Whether Zahira and other witnesses were coerced
or intimidated into changing their testimony. The systemic lack of safeguards to protect
witnesses in sensitive and high-profile cases.
2. Fair Trial: Whether the environment in Gujarat was conducive to a fair trial. The role of
the state and judiciary is to ensure that the trial adheres to the principles of justice and
impartiality.
3. Integrity of the Justice Delivery System: The failure of the prosecution and judiciary to
prevent the miscarriage of justice. Allegations of political interference and corruption
affect the trial’s outcome.
4. Consequences of Perjury: The legal and moral implications of Zahira’s conflicting
statements at different stages of the trial and re-trial.
Proceedings in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat
& Ors
Trial Court
The initial trial took place in a Gujarat sessions court. Zahira and other witnesses retracted their
earlier statements, resulting in the acquittal of all 21 accused. The trial court’s judgement was
widely criticized for its reliance on testimonies that were allegedly influenced by coercion and
intimidation.
High Court
Zahira filed an application under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking
to present additional evidence in the Gujarat High Court. Her application was rejected, leading
her to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court examined the appeal and the allegations of intimidation and coercion. It
observed that the trial had failed to adhere to the principles of a fair trial and ordered a re-trial.
The Court also transferred the case from Gujarat to Maharashtra under the jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court to ensure impartiality.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr v State of Gujarat & Ors
Judgement
The Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr versus State of Gujarat & Ors made
several critical observations during the case:
Witness Tampering
The Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors recognised that witness
tampering had played a significant role in undermining the trial’s integrity. Zahira’s allegations
of coercion and threats were found credible, highlighting the vulnerability of witnesses in
politically sensitive cases.
Fair Trial
The Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr v. State of Gujarat & Ors emphasised that a fair
trial is a constitutional right enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Justice must be
delivered in a manner that is free from bias, coercion, or external influences. The Court
condemned the hostile environment in Gujarat, which made it impossible to conduct an impartial
trial.
Role of State and Prosecutors
The Supreme Court in Best Bakery Case criticised the state machinery, including the police and
prosecutors, for their failure to ensure justice. It noted lapses in the investigation, prosecution,
and trial processes, which allowed the accused to escape accountability.
Contradictory Testimonies in Best Bakery Case
The Court ordered an inquiry into Zahira’s conflicting statements during the trial, re-trial, and
press conferences. The inquiry revealed that Zahira had altered her testimony multiple times,
possibly due to financial inducements or external pressures. However, the inquiry officer could
not conclusively link the inducements to any specific individuals.
The Supreme Court in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors delivered a
historic judgement aimed at addressing the systemic failures exposed in the case:
1. Re-trial and Transfer of Case: The Court in Best Bakery Case ordered a re-trial of the
case under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. The re-trial was aimed at ensuring
a fair and impartial proceeding.
2. Re-investigation: The Court directed the Director General of Police, Gujarat, to oversee
a re-investigation of the case with utmost sincerity and urgency. The Court emphasised
the need for accountability in the investigation process.
3. Inquiry into Zahira’s Statements: The Supreme Court accepted the inquiry officer’s
report, which found evidence of financial inducements and external influences affecting
Zahira’s testimony. However, the Court noted that the evidence was inconclusive in
identifying the individuals responsible for the coercion.
4. Condemnation of Justice System Failures: The Court strongly condemned the lapses in
the justice delivery system, calling for systemic reforms to prevent similar miscarriages
of justice in the future.
Conclusion
The Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State of Gujarat & Ors case is a stark reminder of the
challenges faced by India’s criminal justice system. It exposed the vulnerabilities of witnesses,
the influence of external pressures, and the systemic lapses that compromise the delivery of
justice. The Supreme Court’s judgement not only addressed the immediate issues in the case but
also set a precedent for ensuring fairness and accountability in the justice delivery system. The
case serves as a call to action for comprehensive reforms to uphold the rule of law and protect
the rights of all citizens.
Conclusion
The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone of the Indian legal system, enshrined in the Constitution
and bolstered by national laws and international conventions. It ensures that justice is not only
done but seen to be done, upholding the dignity and rights of the accused, the victim, and society.
Courts in India play a crucial role in safeguarding this right by adhering to established legal
principles, ensuring that the judicial process is transparent, impartial, and accessible to all.
For a democracy to thrive, it is essential that the rights of individuals—whether victims or
accused—are protected, and the justice system remains fair and transparent. India’s legal
framework, with its strong constitutional safeguards, aims to achieve just that, ensuring that the
right to a fair trial is not just a theoretical concept but a practical reality for all.
