IJSSER

Title: ADVERSARIAL V INQUISITORIAL: A PREFERRED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR INDIA
Authors: Dr Samreen Hussain
\|\| \|\|
Dr Samreen Hussain Assistant Professor, Dr Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow
MLA 8 Hussain, Dr Samreen. "ADVERSARIAL V INQUISITORIAL: A PREFERRED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR INDIA." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, vol. 8, no. 11, Nov. 2023, pp. 3483-3494, doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2023.v08i11.010. Accessed Nov. 2023. APA 6 Hussain, D. (2023, November). ADVERSARIAL V INQUISITORIAL: A PREFERRED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR INDIA. Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research, 8(11), 3483-3494. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2023.v08i11.010 Chicago Hussain, Dr Samreen. "ADVERSARIAL V INQUISITORIAL: A PREFERRED CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR INDIA." Int. j. of Social Science and Economic Research 8, no. 11 (November 2023), 3483-3494. Accessed November, 2023. https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2023.v08i11.010.
References [1]. Herbert.L.Packer The Limits Of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford University Press, California, 1stedn 1968) [2]. Ibid. [3]. Anup Kumar Varshney “Problems of Criminal Justice System in the Dispensation of Justice” 24 The Indian Journal of Criminology and Criminalistic 9 (2003). [4]. Supra note 35 at 142-143. [5]. Ibid. [6]. M. L. Sharma “Role and Function Of Prosecution In Criminal Justice” C. B. I. Bulletin, 9 (1997). [7]. Ibid. [8]. Government of India, Report: Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System (Ministry of home affairs 2003) [9]. Ibid. [10]. Ravi Nair “The Malimath Committee’s Reforms in Criminal Justice In India: A Human Right Reflection”, in K.I. Vibhute(edn), Criminal Justice-A Human Right Perspective of Criminal Justice Process In India, 142, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1sted 2004.) [11]. A.S. Goldstein “Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty pleas and the Public Interst”, 49 SMU Law Review 567 (1996). [12]. Vijay Kumar “Recommendation of the Malimath Committee- A Critical Approach in Human Right Perspective”Cri. L. J 33 (2008). [13]. Available at www.ahrck.net/ua/india_cjs/related _html (visited on 14th April 2020). [14]. Ibid. [15]. JayatilakGuha Roy, Yatish Mishra, “Criminal Justice Administration in India: Emerging Trends and Futuristic Introspection” 43 Indian Journal of Public Administration,799 (1997). [16]. Ravi Nair “The Malimath Committee’s Reforms in Criminal Justice In India: A Human Right Reflection”, in K.I. Vibhute(edn), Criminal Justice-A Human Right Perspective of Criminal Justice Process In India, 164, (Eastern Book Company, Lucknow, 1sted 2004.) (1)In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the court-(a) May at any stage, without previously warning the accused put such questions to him as the court considers necessary; (b) Shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case:Provided that in a summons-case where the court has dispensed with the personal, attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b). ( (2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub-section (1). ( (3) The accused shall not render him self-liable to punishment by refusing to answer such question, or by giving false answers to them. ( (4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he had committed [17]. Vijay Kumar “Recommendation of The Malimath Committee- A Critical Approach in Human Right Perspective Cri. L. J 33 (2008). [18]. 178.G. Wolpin “America’s Adversarial and Jury System-: More Likely to do Justice 26 Har.J. Law and Policy 175 (2003). [19]. Ibid. [20]. Supra note 16 at 35 [21]. PurviPokhrayal, “Criminal Justice System: Little done, Vast Undone”, 1 (2) Gujarat Law Herald 6 (2007). [22]. State of Madhya Pradesh v Dharkole alias Govind Singh (AIR 2005 SC 44). [23]. William. J. Stuntz, “The Uneasy Relationship between Criminal Procedure and Criminal Justice” 107 Yale. L.J. 55 (1997). [24]. Supra note 14 at 157. [25]. JayatilakGuha Roy, Yatish Mishra, “Criminal Justice Administration in India: Emerging Trends and Futuristic Introspection” 43 Indian Journal of Public Administration,795(1997). [26]. R. K. Raghvan, “Reforming Criminal Law: A police Persepective” Delhi Law Review 15 (1999). [27]. Carrie Menkel Meadow “Is Adversary System really Dead? Dilemmas of Legal Ethics as Legal Institution and Roles Evolved. 15 Bond Law Review 79 (2003). [28]. .A.S. Goldstein “Converging Criminal Justice Systems: Guilty pleas and the Public Interst”, 49 SMU Law Review 567 (1996) [29]. Supra note 14 at18-19 [30]. Supra note 17 [31]. Supra note 17 at 179.
ABSTRACT: The criminal justice system embraces, within its fold all those processes and institution, which concerns themselves with the formulation and enforcement of penal prohibitions, the adjudication of concrete cases relating to violation of such prohibitions and dispositions of those who are held guilty of violation. The ultimate objective of criminal justice system is the protection of society and preservation of such values as are considered, in point of their quality and nature, as appropriate for imposition of punishment. The criminal justice system in India is facing some challenges which it must overcome in order to survive by earning faith of the people for which it exists. The common man has no idea of the inherent lacunas in it and he is surprised when he finds that he does not get the relief or remedy which he may have justly expected and ultimately he loses faith in the system. It is therefore repeatedly felt that there is urgent need to review the entire criminal justice system.

IJSSER is Member of