The principle of fair trial is a fundamental pillar of justice, ensuring that no innocent person is wrongfully convicted due to the suppression of evidence. The landmark US Supreme Court ruling in Brady v. Maryland (1963) set a critical precedent by mandating that prosecutors must disclose all exculpatory evidence to the defence.
Commonly referred to as the Brady Rule, this doctrine has significantly influenced the American legal system. The question remains – should India adopt a similar principle?
The Brady ruling originated from a case where the prosecution withheld a co-defendant’s confession that could have altered the sentencing of the accused. The US Supreme Court held that suppressing material evidence favourable to the accused, whether intentional or unintentional, violates due process. This judgment strengthened prosecutorial ethics and reinforced the right to a fair trial by ensuring that no evidence crucial to the defence is kept hidden.
How a Brady Rule could reform Indian criminal law
India’s legal framework recognises the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, but there is no explicit provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and now the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), that mandates the prosecution to disclose all exculpatory evidence. This raises concerns about prosecutorial accountability and transparency in criminal trials. While Indian courts have time and again called for fairness in trials, the absence of a structured legal mandate like the Brady Rule leaves significant gaps in implementation.
A Brady Rule could significantly reform Indian criminal law by mandating the prosecution to disclose all material evidence, including information favourable to the defence. While Section 207 of the CrPC requires furnishing certain documents like witness statements and reports, it lacks an explicit provision ensuring that exculpatory evidence is shared. Implementing a Brady-like rule would enhance transparency, prevent wrongful convictions and uphold the integrity of trials by ensuring that no crucial evidence is withheld from the accused.
The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the principle that fairness is fundamental to criminal trials, as reaffirmed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004). Integrating Brady principles into Indian law would strengthen this commitment by mandating the disclosure of exculpatory evidence, preventing wrongful convictions and ensuring justice is served with full transparency.
Indian courts have repeatedly recognised the prosecution’s duty to act fairly in cases, with the Supreme Court affirming in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) that fairness and due process are essential to Article 21. However, the lack of a legal framework akin to the Brady Rule allows prosecutors significant discretion in disclosing evidence, creating the risk of potential misuse and undermining the principles of a fair trial.
In the landmark case of Pullukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor, the Privy Council stressed that fair disclosure is essential to ensuring a fair trial. This principle has been reaffirmed in multiple judgments, including Siddharth Vashisht v. NCT Delhi, where the Supreme Court highlighted the prosecution’s duty to disclose all relevant material to safeguard the fairness of proceedings. Furthermore, in Sasikala v. State, the Court ruled that the accused has the right to access documents submitted to the court, even if they were not formally exhibited by the prosecution.
These cases reflect the Indian judiciary’s consistent commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and fair trial. While India does not have an explicitly codified Brady Rule, these judicial precedents align with its core objectives of ensuring transparency and preventing wrongful convictions due to suppressed evidence.
The absence of a mandatory disclosure rule often forces defence lawyers to seek court intervention to obtain crucial evidence. A legislative amendment to the CrPC, now BNSS, could address this gap by establishing a structured disclosure obligation, ensuring that prosecutors are required to provide all material evidence, including exculpatory information.
Enhancing prosecutorial accountability in India is crucial, as the prosecution’s close association with the police often results in selective presentation of evidence, sometimes leading to the withholding of crucial material to secure convictions. Implementing a structured disclosure rule would serve as a safeguard against such practices, ensuring transparency and fairness while fostering greater accountability within the criminal justice system.
Adopting the Brady principle would strengthen India’s justice system, but its implementation faces significant hurdles. Investigating agencies may resist disclosing information that undermines their case, fearing it could weaken prosecutions. Additionally, many defendants, particularly those from marginalised backgrounds, often lack awareness of their rights and access to competent legal counsel, limiting their ability to demand fair disclosure. Moreover, without robust judicial oversight, a mandatory disclosure rule could prove ineffective, as enforcement gaps may allow prosecutorial discretion to persist unchecked.
Source : https://www.barandbench.com/columns/need-for-a-brady-rule-in-the-indian-criminal-justice-system