Illegally Obtained Evidence: The Battle Between Legal Integrity and Justice

Author: Abhijeeth Nimmaraju, ICFAI Law School, Hyderabad

ABSTRACT

This study is to improve the understanding of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in the Indian Judicial system. The scope of this paper includes a brief overview of various legislations including the Indian Evidence Act as well as constitutional provisions, landmark judgements, and court interpretations. The goal is to understand the legal framework governing the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and to assess the impact of this issue on the fairness and integrity of Indian criminal procedures. The research methodology is majorly doctrinal.

KEYWORDS

Illegally Obtained Evidence, Admissibility, Judicial Discretion, Procedural Rights, Public Interest.

OBJECTIVES

To study the Legal Framework Governing the Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India.
To explore Constitutional rights and their impact on the Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India.
To analyse judicial precedents, that have shaped the jurisprudence surrounding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence. Focusing on the principles and criteria used in determining admissibility.
To identify exceptions and limitations to the exclusionary rule, exploring circumstances where illegally obtained evidence may be admitted, such as when it is relevant, reliable, and the exclusion would not render the trial unfair.
To evaluate the balance between justice and individual rights
To provide Practical insights and recommendations based on the research findings.
To contribute to the existing knowledge, by filling gaps in understanding and providing a comprehensive analysis of this complex and controversial issue.

METHODOLOGY

A Doctrinal Approach is used in the research, which incorporates primary and secondary data sources. This work's data was compiled from a variety of books, online sources, research papers, articles, and journals. The thoughts and content of this work were developed utilizing secondary data. My report and ideas for this issue are the outcome of the information acquired.

Introduction

The admissibility of illegally obtained evidence has been a burning area of debate within the Indian legal system. The admission or exclusion of such evidence has severe impact on the administration of justice, the protection of individual rights, and the preservation of the rule of law. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Constitution of India provide the legal structure which elaborates onto the admissibility of evidence is determined. However, the tension between ensuring a fair trial and deterring unlawful practices raises complex legal questions. Essentially the whole debate revolves around the question “Does two wrongs make a right?”

Delving into the interplay between the Indian Evidence Act and constitutional rights, particularly the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal landscape surrounding this contentious issue. The research findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on balancing justice administration and individual rights in India's legal system.

Impact of British Jurisprudence and Comparative Analysis with other Countries:

Here it will be pertinent to mention by enunciating the factor that had an overwhelming effect over the admissibility factor of illegally procured evidence in the court of law in the country of India is British colonization in the history of its territory during the colonial era and the adoption of British legal principles.

Comment 1: Legal Heritage India’s legal tradition can be traced back to Britain. So, bywords of its British colonial rulers, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, have borrowed deeply the British common law principles. Therefore, the approach in admitting illegally obtained evidence in India also has its shade in British jurisprudence.

Common Law Principles: Based on ideals of fairness, justice, and the exclusionary rule, received from Britain’s common law, had given a constitutive basis for the Indian legal system toward the treatment of illegally obtained evidence. This borrowed principle of Britain set the foundational basis of Indian understanding on the admission of illegally obtained evidence.

Case Law Precedents:

Indian courts often refer to British legal precedents in their judgments on admissibility issues. Significant British cases, have been cited and relied upon in Indian court decisions, establishing persuasive authority.

The United States courts represent one extreme by automatically excluding State evidence which is tainted with any kind of illegality. In the same way Canada High Court tried to make law like Britain, but its 1974 Amendment provides for a modified exclusionary rule. The courts in Scotland have excluded evidence which is illegally obtained in most cases. Australia has expanded the operation of a discretionary rule and has moved towards the Scots-Irish model. The courts in New Zealand have shown a desire to remain flexible in weighing the relevance of evidence with interests of fairness and public policy. The rules in each country have developed in response to prevalent social conditions and the public attitude toward crime and the enforcement of criminal laws. The law reform commissions that have considered the problem of the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in England, Canada, and Australia have uniformly rejected the extreme exclusionary and inclusionary rules in favour of a more flexible approach. Statutory reforms may well bring the rules in the various countries somewhat closer together in the future. Though the above made, is just an analysis in relation with admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in comparison with other countries.

In summary, the influence of British jurisprudence on the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India is significant due to the historical legacy of British colonial rule, the adoption of British legal principles, and the references to British case law in Indian court decisions. This influence differentiates India from other countries that may have their own distinct legal systems and sources of jurisprudence.

Constitutional Provisions:

Right Against Self-Incrimination (Article 20(3)): The Constitution guarantees the right against self-incrimination, barring an individual from being forcibly made a witness against himself. Evidence procured as a consequence of the violation of this constitutional right is vehemently condemned and ordinarily rendered inadmissible.
Right to Privacy: Article 21: The right to privacy has already been viewed as a fundamental right under Article 21, and the case law significantly affects the question of admissibility of illegal evidence in our country.

Statutory Law: Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

1. Section 24— This section of the Indian Evidence Act provides that a confession, whether made in consequence of an inducement, threat, or promise, without any distinction or whatsoever, by a person in authority is irrelevant in any criminal proceeding. Confessions proving to be the result of coercive measures or duress are mostly held to be untrustworthy and consequently excluded from evidence.

2. Section 25: It states that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible in evidence unless it is made in the presence of a magistrate. The argument behind this provision is that it is intended to prevent the abuse of police power.

3. Section 165: Under this section, a police officer or the court is empowered to examine the witnesses during investigation or trial. It helps in ascertaining the truth and eliciting the requisite facts. However, examination of the witnesses shall be carried out fairly, without any biasness and on the principles of natural justice. That means it is illegally obtained evidence, if it has been collected illegally or in any manner which is unfair and biased.

In other words, the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India requires an analysis of constitutional provisions relating to safeguards of individual rights and the framework furnished by the Indian Evidence Act. Constitutional rights against self-incrimination and privacy drive the analysis of admissibility, while specific provisions under the Evidence Act exclude evidence procured through coercion or in breach of protective procedures. It is the careful consideration and application of these constitutional provisions and statutory laws that ensure a fair and just admissibility framework in India.

Few cases where court held that, evidence obtained are through coercion or in violation of procedural safeguards, are as follows.

1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court held that “the administration of narcoanalysis tests without the consent of the accused violates their right against self-incrimination. The evidence obtained through such tests is inherently unreliable and inadmissible.”

2. State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005): The Supreme Court emphasized that “evidence collected in violation of statutory safeguards, such as non-compliance with search and seizure procedures, may be excluded. The procedural irregularities can render evidence inadmissible if they violate an individual's rights or prejudice the fairness of the trial.”

2. BALANCE BETWEEN JUSTICE AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS:

It means privacy in its association with individual freedom and the efficiency to make a choice of thoughts and behaviours that provide freedom of expression without being hindered. It allows us the power of deciding who can learn about us and to what degree while shielding us from outside influence.

It would thus create a delicate balance between the administration of justice and protection of individual rights regarding the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India. This would play a very important role in fostering fairness, upholding the rule of law, and respecting the hallowed principles laid down in the Indian Constitution.

1. Presumption of Innocence: This doctrine finds its foundation in the very principle “innocent until proven guilty.” Admission of illegally obtained evidence that violates individual rights thus strikes at this very doctrine and endangers the final fair judgment of guilt or innocence.

2. Right to a Fair Trial: The very basic right of any individual is the right to a fair trial, which inherently includes the right to argue his case and challenge the evidence against him. The recovery of evidence through unlawful means may compromise the fairness of the trial and hence violate that fundamental right.

3. Deterrence of Illegal Action: This exclusion of illegally obtained evidence will deter law enforcement agencies from unconstitutional or otherwise unethical means to secure convictions, since it will preserve the integrity of the legal system and make sure there is compliance with due process.

4. Constitutional Safeguards: The Constitution of India has guaranteed some fundamental rights to its citizens, like the right against self-incrimination and the right to privacy. This safeguard while admitting the evidence safeguards the rights of a person.

5. Public Interest: While individual rights are paramount, justice and public safety also have to be borne in mind. There could well be exceptional cases where the exclusion of evidence would result in a failure of justice or grave harm to society; and the courts will have to cautiously balance individual rights with the greater public interest.

The Indian courts draw upon the precedents of law, interpret the Constitution and invoke principles of reasonableness and proportionality. Every case is decided on its merits, with a view to strike a balance between concerns for the administration of justice and individual rights.

PRACTICAL INSIGHTS AND EXCEPTIONS:

Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in India has always been somewhat complicated and dynamic in the law. The general rule is that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible, but through judicial decisions, exceptions have been carved out. The following are some exceptions to the principles of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence:

1. Free and Voluntary Consent: Recovery or discovery may be admitted upon proof of free and voluntary consent, even if it is illegally obtained. For example, if some incriminating documents are voluntarily handed over to the police by an accused person without any form of compulsion or inducement, such evidence may be held admissible.

2. Discovery of Truth: The Courts in India have put much premium on the discovery of truth and administration of justice. In some cases, evidence illegally obtained may be admitted into the court in circumstances when its exclusion would result in the suppression of material facts or handicap the court from arriving at the correct conclusion as to what a fact is.

It is a known fact that each case has been judged based on its special facts and circumstances. The admissibility of illegally obtained evidence lies in the discretion of the court, balancing the principles of fairness and justice with the rights guaranteed under the Indian Constitution.

The practical insights into the exceptions, as well as the admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in general, would require an appraisal of relevant case laws and a comment from learned legal experts who might feel inclined to undertake an in-depth analysis of the jurisprudence that is still developing in this field.

UNFAIR OPERATION RULE AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:

UNFAIR OPERATION RULE–

The “unfair operation rule” in Indian law is that principle whereby the enforcement of a statute or a provision therein has to be refused if it is found unreasonably arbitrary, discriminatory, or unfairly hits some persons or group of persons. This rule originates in the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and is applied by courts frequently to strike down unjust laws or unfair actions.

The rule of unfair operation is closely related to Article 14, relating to the right to equality, of the constitutional provisions. Article 14 provides that a law or an act, if discriminatory, irrational, or arbitrary, would violative of the right to equality and hence can be declared unconstitutional by courts.

The rule against unfair operation has been applied time and again by courts in India to ensure that laws and actions of the government do not unduly burden certain persons or groups of persons. This rule protects from discriminatory practices and prevents arbitrary exercise of power by the authorities.

This has been applied in many cases, but for our case, in KURMA V. THE QUEENS, it was held that “Evidence obtained illegally are admissible if relevant, but it is the discretion of the court to exclude such illegally obtained evidence, it leads to unfairness to the accused.” Later known as “UNFAIR OPERATION RULE”.

Concisely, the rule of unfair operation under Indian law acts as a check on arbitrary and discriminatory legislations or executive actions.

It ensures that the government operates fairly and reasonably, respecting the principles of equality and justice enshrined in the Constitution. By invoking this rule, this thereby plays an important role in courts for the enforcement of basic rights so that society may be just and fair.

Judicial Precedent:

Judicial precedents, also known as case law, are the legal decisions and interpretations made by courts that establish binding principles and rules for future cases. Precedents serve as authoritative guidance for lower courts and provide consistency and predictability in the legal system. When a court makes a decision, the legal reasoning and principles applied become a precedent that must be followed by lower courts in similar cases. Precedents are an important source of law in common law systems and help in ensuring fairness, uniformity, and the development of legal principles over time.

Magaraj Patodya vs R. K. Birla - “Obtaining a text by illegal or unethical means does not exclude its admissibility, given its genuineness and relevance can be established.” Thus, although the court may recognize the circumstances surrounding their production before the court, the illegality or improperness of the manner in which the proof was obtained has a little precise bearing on the evidence’s importance or significance. It was opined that such facts should be reviewed meticulously and that an investigation should be conducted to ascertain that such illegal tactics were used to procure the evidence in question without observing proper legal procedure. This medium, though, would become a distinct concern that would not interfere with pending trial proceedings.

In short evidence will be admissible even if obtained by illegal means.

KURMA V. THE QUEENS MANU SEBASTIAN 16 Mar 2019 - Court held that admissible if relevant, but it is the discretion of the court to exclude such illegally obtained evidence, it leads to unfairness to the accused.

Later known as “UNFAIR OPERATION RULE”

STATE OF MAHARASTRA VS NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI- Held that any illegally obtained evidence is admissible in the court of law if it is relevant to the matter, but the value of such evidence is to be dealt with care and caution by the court

POORAN MAL V. DIRECTOROF INSPECTION OF INCOME TAX- The hon'ble Indian Supreme Court held that no constitution or statutory construction prescribes to exclude the illegally obtained evidence thereby the only test of admissibility of evidence is the relevancy of the evidence.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations for Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence:

1. Clarify and Codify legislation: Create clear and comprehensive legislation addressing the admission of illegally obtained evidence. This will give courts and legal practitioners guidance and enhance uniformity in decision-making.

2. Constitutional Safeguards: Constitutional Safeguards: To guarantee that evidence obtained unlawfully is excluded, strengthen constitutional protections for individual rights such the right to privacy and the prohibition against self-incrimination.

3. Exclusionary Rule: Unless there are exceptional circumstances where the public interest outweighs the violation of individual rights, adopt an exclusionary rule mandating the automatic exclusion of evidence obtained illegally.

4. Judicial Discretion: Grant judges the power to exclude evidence, even if it was not obtained unlawfully, if admitting it will compromise the fairness and integrity of the trial process.

It is imperative to acknowledge that the aforementioned guidelines are broad in scope, and their precise execution and efficacy may differ based on the legal framework and jurisdiction. Stakeholder engagement, legal study, and thorough analysis are all required when developing particular recommendations for any jurisdiction.

CONCLUSION

In a nutshell, the admissibility of evidence elicited by foul means in India is a very complex and sensitive issue, which needs a proper balancing act between the cause of justice and individual rights. The ultimate goal, however, is the upholding of justice while defending fundamental rights, even though certain exceptions and practical insights are allowed as a flexibility in special circumstances. Even through a few exceptions, practical insights, and flexibility in situations where it is necessary, the objective will be to stand for justice while defending basic rights. Justice and individual rights have to be in harmony for there to be a just and fair legal system in India.

In other words, the legality involving admissibility of illegally obtained evidence is a continuous process that requires constant scrutiny, judicial testing, and legislative consideration. An evolving branch of Indian law, with the courts adjudicating upon new issues thrown up by the new innovations in technology and changes in social mores, more changes are expected. Ultimately, the admissibility of unlawfully obtained material must be in line with justice, rationality, and the respect of constitutional rights in order to maintain the integrity and validity of the evidence at issue.

REFERENCES: