The basic precondition for sustainable economic development is rule of law. In
societies with a weak system, those that lack the resources for or access to the
judiciary are often denied the safeguard of their fundamental rights.
Theory of injustice or failure of our legislature, administration, and our
judiciary. No doubt another reason is poverty, greedy, illiteracy, and the main
thing our administration does not protect is the right of another.
If a person
is born in a society they have equal right to avail all the right and
opportunity which is given by our state or statutory provisions. An Integrated
Systems Theory of Antisocial Behavior explains why some people are more
susceptible to antisocial behavior than others. Risk factors that increase the
probability of antisocial behavior are identified, and supply an in-depth
understanding of what produces criminality, delinquency, and deviance.
It is estimated that nearly 4 billion people around the world don't enjoy the
protection provided by the laws. The courts in India have purported the
necessity to recognize the rights of prisoners and improve their conditions. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the essential rights of prisoners - there
might be several factors that lead a prisoner to commit a criminal offense but a
prisoner is required to be treated as a person's being entitled to all or any
the essential human rights, human dignity and human sympathy.
directed the Ministry of Home Affairs and States to take measures to improve the
condition of prisons through regular audits, hiring and training of staff,
implementation of the National Model Prison Manual, and appointment of Board of
Visitors to ensure proper inspection, etc..
There is a very thin difference between right and omission of crime. In the
early era no hast and fast concept of crime and right. They were mainly indulged
in hunting and gathering food eventually people aware of their rights and duties
simultaneously concept of crime emerged. As we have a number of rights
increases, same way number of crimes reported.
Began with the discussion of some questions such as why crime? Why do we need
to protect the rights? What human action constitutes a crime. Or our statutory
provisions decide which action falls under the ambit of crime. Or our moral
principle decide. A very famous philosopher Bentham's version of the utilitarian
method society achieves the higher principle of morality.
Means everyone obeys
their right and duties and follows the moral principle. At the end of the day,
we achieve a sanction-free society. But unfortunately, it seems impossible.
When we go through the work of different philosophers we found that different
types of theory such as:
Situational Action Theory (SAT):
It is a general, dynamic, and mechanism-based
theory of crime and its causes. It is general because it proposes to explain all
kinds of crime (and rule-breaking more generally). It is dynamic because it
centers on analyzing crime and its changes as the outcome of the interactions
between people and their environments. It is mechanism-based because its
explanation focuses on identifying key basic processes involved in crime
It used to be thought that criminal behavior was the result
of a possessed mind and/or body and the only way to exorcise the evil was
usually by some torturous means.
Sigmund Freud Psychological Theory:
Persons with overdeveloped superegos feel
guilty for no reason and wish to be punished in order to relieve this guilt they
are feeling and committing crimes is a method of obtaining such desired
punishment and relieving the guilt.
Yochelson and Samenow:
- The theory of free will to explain criminal behavior
- The roots of criminality lie in the way people think and make their
- Criminals think and act differently than other people, even from a very
- Criminals are, by nature, irresponsible, impulsive, self-centered, and
driven by fear and anger. etc
The same way there is the various concept of right morality is the higher
principle of right. A right is described as an entitlement or justified claim to
a certain kind of positive and negative treatment from others, to support from
others or non-interference from others. In other words, a right is something to
which every individual in the community is morally permitted, and for which that
community is entitled to disrespect or compulsorily remove anything that stands
in the way of even a single individual getting it.
So there are several theorists given theory of right
According to Bentham:
Utilitarianism Is the utility principle. Utilitarianism
is solely consequentialist; the justice or injustice of an action or state of
affairs is determined exclusively by the consequences it brings about. If an
action maximizes utility, it is just.
The right action, therefore, is that which is done in
conformity with our moral duty, regardless of consequence.
Laski's Theory of Rights:
He describes rights as those conditions of social
life without which no man can seek, in general, to be himself at his best. Laski calls rights as conditions of social life. In the last, we can analyze
how the physical action of human turn into crime. One side of the right of
theory is which persons have the right to do things for their survival another
side you have to follow moral duty you can not breach otherwise you commit a
Fact And Circumstances
Who will decide this specific human action fall under the crime? Ultimately this
is decided by our legislature or statutory provisions on the basis of
categorization of human conduct. What if those actions infringed the equality
principle and were morally wrong but did not constitute a crime in statutory
provisions. The same way our lawmakers frame a law But I am still confused
about what human action (crime) is a crime or it depends upon time and
Let's understand the consequential moral reasoning:
- Suppose you are the driver of a car, and your car is hurding down the
track at sixty miles per hour and at the end of the track, you notice five
workers working on the track you tried to stop but you cannot. Your brake does
not work you feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these five
workers they will all die. You feel helpless until you notice that there is off
to the ride sidetrack at the end of that track there is one worker working on
the track, your steering wheel works so you can turn the car if you want to on
the side track killing the one but sparing the five.
What would you do? As per principle what is the right thing to do? Why?
- In another case you are an onlooker and you standing on a bridge
overlooking a car track and down the track comes to a car at the end of the
track there are five workers working while off to the track there is one
person working. The brakes do not work, the car is about to careen into five
and kill them now you are not driver, you feel helpless until you notice the
standing next to you leaning over the bridge - is it very fat man and you
could give him a shove he would fall over the bridge on the track, the car
ran over. He would die but he would spare the five.
In the Same question what would you do?
- Let's another situation -you are a doctor in an emergency room and six
patients come to you, they have been in a terrible accident five of them
sustained moderate injuries but one is severely injured. You could spend all
day carrying for one severely injured victim but in that time they would die
or you could look after five than during that time that one would die. To
whom would you save?
- In the last you are a transplant surgeon and you have five patients each
in desperate need of an organ transplant in order to survive one needs a
heart, one lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and the fifth one a pancreas.
And you have no organ donors you are about to see you they die and them it
occurs you that in the next room there is a healthy guy who came for checkup
and he is taking nap, you could go in very quietly and yank out the five
organs, that person would die but you can save thee five.
The same question is here what would you do? And what would your reasoning?
Right under which protected by the constitution of India
Faith of people on the criminal justice system
- Protection against Ex-post Facto Law
An ex-post-facto law is a law that imposes penalties retrospectively positive in
nature means in favor of the accused i.e. on acts that were committed before the
passing of the present legislation. Article 20 (1) of the Indian Constitution
provides that no person shall be convicted of any offense except for the
violation of law in force at the time of the commission of an act charged as
offense nor shall be subjected to any penalty which is greater than the one
which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time when the
offense was committed. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 also
protect the Ex-post facto laws under Art 11 para 2
- Right against Self-incrimination
This article protects the accused from the compulsion of giving testimony that
may expose him to prosecution for crime. This is the duty of the prosecution to
prove the offense. Article 20(3) of the Indian constitution provides that no
person accused of any offense shall be compelled to be a witness against
- Right to the arrested person to be informed of the ground of arrest
Article 22 of the Indian constitution provides that a person arrested for any
offense under any ordinary law be informed as soon as possible the grounds of
his offense. Moreover, section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code also provides
the same. These grounds of arrest have to be communicated to the accused in the
language understood by him the non-compliance of which shall lead to violation
of the constitutional requirements.
- The arrested person should be produced before the magistrate
Article 22 (2) provides that an arrested person must be taken to the magistrate
within 24 hours of his arrest. A similar provision has also been incorporated
under section 56 of CrPC. It is the duty of the police officer while making an
arrest without a warrant to produce the person before the magistrate having
competent jurisdiction in the case without any unnecessary delay and also by
compiling with the provisions of bails.
- Right to a speedy trial
As it is commonly said the justice delayed is justice denied it is the
fundamental right of the accused that the trial of the case should be conducted
expeditiously. In Hussainara Khatoon (IV) V. State of Bihar the Supreme
Court declared that speedy trial is an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair
and just procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and that it is the constitutional
obligation of the state of devise such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial
to accused. It is also the constitutional obligation of the court, as the
guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vies,
to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to a speedy trial by issuing
necessary directions to the State.
- Victims of crime vis-à-vis the Constitutional law.
The Indian constitution contains various provisions which endorse the principle
of victim compensation. Article 41 which imbibes victimology in a wider
perspective mandates inter alia that the state shall make effective provisions
for securing public assistance in case of disablement and in other cases of
undeserved wants. Article 51-A makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen of
India to protect and improve the natural environment… and to have a comparison
for living creatures and to develop humanism.
If empathetically interpreted and
imaginatively expanded, one can find here the constitutional beginnings of victimology in the opinion of Krishna Iyer.  Further, the guarantee against
unjustified deprivation of life and liberty (Article 21) has its elements
obligating the State to Compensate victims of criminal violence, as stated by
- The role of justice in overcoming poverty
Justice is the idea that all people, every place in the world, have the right to
a life of quality. This means a life free from poverty, violence, demarcation,
or mortal rights violations. A world where justice exists is a world where all
people are included in society and all people can claim their rights to
education, sanctum, and health care anyhow of how poor or rich they are Moment
the connection between poverty and crime is inversely strong, estimates of the
number of poor people in the felonious justice system range from two-third to
eighty percent. So the maturity of people with whom the system deals are
After two years of comprehensive negotiations and discussions,
the members of the UN have agreed on a framework for global development efforts
which is called the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In societies with
the weak legal systems, those who lack the resources for or access to the
judiciary are often denied the safeguard of their fundamental rights.
The government of India constituting the committee on reforms of the criminal
justice system, chaired by justice V.S Malimath was uncharacteristic candid in
its lamentation that People by and largely lost confidence in the protecting
the right and securing the justice. People feel ignored and are crying for
attention and justice.  on the recommendation of the law commission of India
in relation to wetness protection, the Malimath Committee concludes that time
has come for a comprehensive law being enacted for the protection of the witness
and members of his family.
In 2003 the Parliament amend the Criminal law to insert the sec. 164-A and
sec.344-A in the Cr.P.C to protect the issue of witnesses hostile. Moreover,
sec. 195-A proposed in I.P.C deals with the threatening or inducing of any
person to give false evidence. This response of the government is not only ad
hoc but also inadequate as it fails to address the whole range of issues by
victims of crime.
Police excesses in India resulted not only in third-degree methods but also in
custodial rapes and death. Many cases of custodial deaths may not have been seen
the light of the day and may have gone unreported and unpunished. It is the duty
of the police for the safety of prisoners and Rule 48 of Madras Prisons rule
framed under the Prisons Act makes the police statutorily responsible for the
safe custody of the prisoners while in jail. No doubt here not only death of a
person but also the death of person's right and somewhere crime happen. Crime is
nothing hitting a Sindh one's personal right or trespassing the personal space
In-State Of Andhra Pradesh V. Venugopal And Others
The Supreme Court reversed the order of acquittal of three police officers who
indulge in the torture of the accused in police custody and sentenced them to 5
years imprisonment. 
In Another Case State Of Uttar Pradesh V. Ram Sagar Yadav
The case of trespass accused was beaten to death by the police for not having
obliged their demands of bribe and for reporting the demand of bribe to the S.P.
The Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and
restored the conviction of the session Judge u/s 304 of IPC. But Supreme Court
felt that accused should be convicted under sec.302 of IPC.
Similar Case of Challa Ramakenda Reddy and others V. State of A.P
Where a peculiar case of death of a person in Police custody caused by
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966
The ideal of free human beings enjoying civil and political freedom and freedom
from fear and want can be achieved only if conditions are created whereby
everyone may enjoy his civil and political rights, as well as his economic,
social and cultural rights.
Everyone has the right to just conditions of work; fair wages ensuring a decent
living for himself and his family; equal pay for equal work; safe and healthy
working conditions; equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted; rest and
Everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living for himself and his
family, including adequate food, clothing and housing. Everyone has the right to
be free from hunger.
The space of rights rests on three principles
- Autonomy principle: we all have our own lives to lead; the space of rights
must give us substantial freedom to do so, while also holding us accountable for
- Equality principle: we are all fundamentally equal as members or
citizens of the space of rights.
- Welfare principle: our welfare matters and that value affects the rights
Everywhere within the world, have the proper to a lifetime of dignity. This
means a life free from poverty, violence, discrimination or human rights
violations. The right to access justice is one of the essential fundamental
rights of all criminal justice systems. The protection of fundamental rights
through the criminal justice delivery system is an important feature of any
system governed by the rule of law. There are many rights such as natural
rights, udhr, legal rights, constitutional rights, etc. but the reasoning behind
every right is to protect the freedom, status, and dignity of people.
The main objectives of the criminal justice system can be categorized as
- To prevent the occurrence of crime.
- To punish the transgressors and the criminals.
- To rehabilitate the transgressors and the criminals.
- To compensate the victims as far as possible.
- To maintain law and order in society.
- To deter the offenders from committing any criminal act in the future.
Today in every step of life individual is faced with the prospect of violation
of his fundamental rights not only by the other individuals but also by the
numerous social institutions which are founded with the sole aim of defending
such rights. The protection of fundamental rights through the criminal justice
delivery system is an unavoidable feature of any rule-of-law system.
assumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, and the burden of proof are
all fundamental pillars on which the criminal justice system is built today. One
of the most basic fundamental rights in any criminal justice system is the right
to access justice. Adequate access to justice also necessitates effective access
Written By: Shamir
- SC Order in Re - Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons dated 2th May 2017.
W.P.(C) No.406 of 2013
- 1978, first formulated a trolley case. But Foot left a driver in control
and saw it as a choice between killing one or killing five. It was Thomson,
1976, who first put the responsibility on the shoulders of a bystander at a
switch, thereby raising the problem of justifying the killing of one to save
- Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948
- AIR 1995 SC 366
- S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd., 1986 SCC(Cri) 64: (1986) 1 SCC 654: 1986
Cri LJ 255; Madheshwardhari Singh v. State of Bihar, 1986 Cri LJ 1771 (Pat),
Mihir Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, 1990 Cri LJ 26 (Cal).
- V.R.Krishna Iyer, A Burgeoning Global Jurisprudence of Victimology and
some compassionate Dimensions of India Justice to victims of crime, 1999
- D.D.Basu, Constitutional Law of India,223 , (Wadhwa & Co., Nagpur, 2003)
- What Does Justice Have to Do with Overcoming Poverty? open soceity
foundation, (Jan 31, 2017, 19:43PM) https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/what-does-justice-have-do-overcoming-povert
- Report of the committee on reform of criminal justice system, Government
of India Ministry of Home Affairs-Vol.1, March 2003
- Para 11.3ibid at 152. The Malimath committee on reform of criminal
justice system: premises, politics, and implications for Human Rights.
- (1964)1 Cri. LJ.16(S.C)
- AIR 1985 SC 416
- (1993) 2 S.C.J. 542
- This is a broadly constructivist project, in line with the way Rawls
describes constructivism, 1993, pp. 93-95. In embracing constructivism about
rights, I mean in no way to reject normative realism as regards other
aspects of morality. My claim is only that the space of rights is
particularly well accounted for by appealing to the implications of working
with this particular set of fundamental principle.