Examination of Procedure Safeguards Under the Indian Constitution (Article 21) and Specific Laws Like C.P.C., Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Bhartiya Sakshya Sanhita, 2023

Abstract

The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21, emphasizing that no individual shall be deprived of these rights except through the procedure established by law. This provision, interpreted expansively by the judiciary, establishes a constitutional framework for procedural safeguards that ensure fairness, reasonableness, and adherence to natural justice principles. The procedural safeguards under Article 21 are further operationalized through statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.), the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bhartiya Sakshya Sanhita, 2023 (BSS). These laws collectively aim to uphold individual rights while balancing the needs of an efficient justice delivery system.

The C.P.C. lays down the procedural rules for civil litigation, emphasizing natural justice, equity, and fair access to courts. Provisions such as summons issuance, the opportunity for hearing, and appellate mechanisms ensure transparency and protect litigants’ rights. Recent amendments, including electronic case management and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, demonstrate the commitment to making civil procedures efficient without compromising procedural integrity. In the domain of criminal law, the BNSS, 2023, replaces the colonial-era Criminal Procedure Code with modernized provisions that enhance procedural safeguards. Key reforms include stricter rules for arrests, judicial oversight of investigations, and robust rights for accused individuals, such as the right to be informed of charges and access to legal counsel. Victim-centric reforms, including provisions for compensation and witness protection, are significant steps towards equitable justice.

The BSS, 2023, replaces the Indian Evidence Act, introducing comprehensive guidelines on evidence admissibility in the digital age. The law incorporates safeguards to ensure the authenticity of electronic evidence, protections for vulnerable witnesses, and adherence to fair trial principles. By retaining protections against self-incrimination and ensuring accused persons' rights to confront evidence, the BSS aligns with constitutional mandates under Article 21. Judicial interpretations, notably in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), have expanded Article 21’s scope, embedding due process and natural justice into India’s legal system. However, practical challenges, including judicial delays, inadequate enforcement, and resource constraints, continue to hinder procedural safeguards' effectiveness.

To strengthen these safeguards, systemic reforms are necessary, including capacity building for judicial officers, better technological integration in court processes, and public legal education initiatives. These measures will not only enhance procedural fairness but also contribute to timely and effective justice delivery. In conclusion, procedural safeguards under Article 21 and statutory laws such as the C.P.C., BNSS, and BSS are crucial for maintaining the rule of law and protecting individual rights. While recent legislative advancements address contemporary challenges, ensuring their effective implementation will be critical to achieving a robust and just legal system.