This Article examines the far reaching impact of human rights protection on India's Criminal Procedural Law. It looks at the Constitutional guarantee, statutory provisions and judicial decisions that uphold individual dignity and protect the rights of the accused. The study examines the interaction between legal framework and human rights principle, the article illustrates how these mechanisms protect justice, preclude abuse of power, and uphold democratic principles.

The discussion includes provisions of the Constitution of India, Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sahinta (CRPC), and the Bhartiya Nyaya Sahinta (IPC), with relevant supporting case law. The paper concludes that the integration of human rights within criminal procedures is the key to a fair, just and equitable legal system in India.

Introduction
The Protection of human rights in the criminal justice system is the essence of any democratic society as it reflects values of dignity, equality and rule of law. In India, these safeguards are not mere aspirations but are well protected in the Indian Constitution and upheld by a well- defined legal and procedural regime.

The criminal justice process- spanning from investigation and arrest to trial and sentencing- has been greatly influenced the principles of human rights to avoid the abuse of state power and to ensure that the rights of the individuals are not arbitrarily violated. Procedural protections, including the prsumption of innocence, right to a fair and expeditious trial, legal counsel, and protection against custodial violence, are an integral part of this system.

These precautions not only guarantee justice as per the law, but they also helps in wider social and moral legitimacy, by helping build public confidence in the judiciary and law enforcement institutions. This article critically analyzes how different provisions of Constitution of India, BNSS, and the judicial precedents maintain and reinforce human rights, while at the same time meeting the practical needs of crime control and law enforcement.

Constitutional Framework

The Indian Constitution is the basis of human rights guarantees, particularly in the matters relating to criminal justice issues. It make sure that the rights of individual-especially the rights of the accused-shall be maintained, upheld, and protected against the arbitrary powers of the state.

Article 14- Equality before the law

Article 14 guarantees the principle of equality before law and equal protections of the laws. This ensures that discrimination in enforcement of criminal laws is not allowed and make sure that every individual, irrespective of status, receive fair treatment in criminal procedures. It is essential guaranteeing that criminal laws are enforced equally and no individual is subject to selective prosecution or arbitrary discrimination.

Article 20 - Protection in Respect of Conviction for Offences

Article 20 provides three important protections:

• Ex post facto law prohibition: No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act.
• Double jeopardy: A person cannot be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once.
• Right against self-incrimination: No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

These protections are especially crucial in investigation and trial, being a part of procedural due process that protects against law enforcement abuse.
 

Article 21 - Right to Life and Liberty

Most widely interpreted of all, Article 21 reads: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law." Over the years, courts have widened the ambit of this article to encompass the right to a fair trial, legal aid, protection from torture, custodial violence, and the right to a speedy trial. This article serves as the heart of criminal procedural reform, ensuring that justice not only be done but be perceived to be done.
 

Article 22 - Protection for Persons Under Arrest

This article provides particular protections to individuals under arrest. It includes:

• The right to be informed of grounds of arrest.
• The right to consult and be represented by an attorney of their choice.
• The right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.
• The prohibition against detention beyond 24 hours without the magistrate's permission.

These provisions are intended to avoid illegal detention, prevent abuse of power by the police, and arbitrary deprivation of liberty, ensuring procedural fairness.
 

Article 13 - Laws Inconsistent with Fundamental Rights

This article provides that any law or provision which violates fundamental rights shall be void to the extent of inconsistency. It establishes the supremacy of constitutional rights over all other laws. Here are some more constitutional provisions that are not always cited first in criminal procedure discussions, but they strengthen the human rights framework indirectly or contextually:

• Article 32 - Right to Constitutional Remedies: Empowers citizens to approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of Fundamental Rights, particularly in cases of illegal detention, denial of legal aid, or custodial torture. In Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, prisoners filed a writ petition under Article 32 to challenge inhuman prison conditions.
   
• Article 19 - Protection of Freedoms: Ensures freedoms such as speech, movement, and assembly, which may be affected by criminal laws (e.g., sedition under Section 152 BNS). Ensures that such restrictions are reasonable and fair.
   
• Article 39 - Equal Justice and Free Legal Aid: A Directive Principle requiring the state to provide free legal aid to prevent denial of justice due to poverty. It supports Section 341 BNSS and strengthens Article 21 by promoting access to justice.
   
• Article 226 - Writ Jurisdiction of High Courts: Grants jurisdiction to issue writs such as habeas corpus, particularly in instances of illegal detention, police brutality, or procedural irregularities, where immediate state-level relief is given.

Statutory Provisions under BNSS and BNS

The Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaces the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is the main law governing criminal investigation, prosecution, and adjudication in India. It translates constitutional protections into enforceable procedures, safeguarding human rights at each step of the criminal justice process.

The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), replacing the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines the nature of criminal offences and punishments, but its enforcement is necessarily governed by the procedural safeguards embedded in the BNSS and the Constitution.
 

Provisions in BNSS

• Section 47 – Information to Arrested Persons: Guarantees that every person arrested without a warrant must be informed of the full particulars of the offence. If the offence is bailable, the accused must also be informed of their right to seek bail. This prevents arbitrary arrest and aligns with Article 22(1).
• Section 341 – Legal Aid to Accused at State Expense: Compels the state to provide legal aid to accused individuals lacking resources, not only in trials but also in appeals. Enhances access to justice and reaffirms the state's pledge to provide equal representation.
• Section 180(2) – Protection Against Self-Incrimination: Protects the accused during investigation by allowing them to refuse answers that may incriminate them. Aligns with Article 20(3).
• Section 346 – Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings: Requires that inquiries and trials continue day-to-day and be concluded without unnecessary adjournments, ensuring justice is neither delayed nor denied, a fundamental part of the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369).
• Section 58 – Person Arrested Not to be Detained Beyond 24 Hours: Ensures that no individual is kept in police custody beyond 24 hours without being presented before a magistrate, in line with Article 22(2).
   

Human Rights Embedded in the BNS

While the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, does not explicitly prescribe procedural rights, its substantive provisions are covered under the constitutional protection and procedures of the BNSS. For example:

• Offences like Wrongful Confinement (Section 127), Criminal Intimidation (Section 351), and Assault by Public Servants (Section 120) are frequently applied in cases of custodial violence or abuse of authority.
• The principles of proportionality in sentencing, the requirement of mens rea (intention), and the presumption of innocence are applied through a rights-sensitive procedure.

Thus, the BNS and BNSS are complementary to each other, with substansive offenses under the BNS being tried on the basis procedural protection of the BNSS, which implement.
constitutional guarantees of dignity, liberty, and fairness.

Judicial Interpretations: Reinforcing Human Rights in Criminal Procedure

The Indian Judiciary has always performed the role of the sentinel on the qui vive for the [rotection of human rights, particularly in the field of criminal law. The Supreme Court in a series of landmark judgements, interpretated constitutional provisions in a progressive direction, eafrimming the values of fairness, dignity and due process in criminal trials.

1. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597
   This landmark case transformed the meaning of Article 21 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that:
   "Procedure established by law" under Article 21 has to be just, fair, and reasonable — not arbitrary, fanciful, or oppressive.
   This ruling practically overruled the previous strict interpretation in A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950), and held that procedural due process is a vital component of life and personal freedom. It associated Article 21 with Articles 14 and 19, thereby commencing the "Golden Triangle" doctrine, which balances equality, liberty, and freedom in procedural law.
2. Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369
   This public interest litigation revealed the abominable condition of undertrial prisoners in Bihar who were stuck in jails for more time than even the maximum penalty imposed for their alleged offences.
   The Court stated the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental part of Article 21, holding:
   "It is the constitutional obligation of the State to ensure that the accused persons are tried as expeditiously as possible."
    
3. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273
   On concerns regarding misuse of arrest powers, particularly under Section 498A IPC [Sec 85 BNS], the Supreme Court made mandatory guidelines under Section 41 CrPC [Sec 35 BNSS] to avoid unnecessary arrests.
   It ruled that:
   "Arrest should be an exception, not the rule, in particular where the offence is liable to be punished with imprisonment for up to seven years."
   This ruling favoured individual freedom, instructed the police to document arrest reasons, and curbed the magistracy from blindly endorsing custody, thus increasing accountability and procedural adherence.
    
4. Bhagalpur Blinding Case (Khatri v. State of Bihar), AIR 1981 SC 928
   In the given case, the police had blinded a number of undertrial prisoners by spilling acid into their eyes. The Court took suo motu cognizance and held that torture and custodial violence are against Articles 21 and 14. The Court directed compensation to victims which was an unusual step at that time and stressed on:
   "The right to legal aid is implicit in Article 21."
   This judgment initiated the doctrine of compensatory jurisprudence in India and consolidated the doctrine of State liability for custodial torture.
    
5. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 41
   This is a landmark case regarding custodial violence and arrest procedures. Issued mandatory guidelines to police at the time of arrest and detention, including:
   
   • Preparation of arrest memo
   • Informing family
   • Medical examination
   • Production before a magistrate within 24 hours
   This raised all these procedural rights as part of Article 21.
    
6. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260
   This case reaffirmed that arrest is not necessary just because it is legal. For arrest, police have to justify arrest on grounds of necessity and reasonableness. It strengthened personal freedom under Article 21.
    
7. Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1
   In this case it was held that even terror accused are entitled to a fair trial, legal aid, and all constitutional protections. It aligns with the principle that fairness in procedure is not subject to the seriousness of the offence.
    
8. Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378
   This case granted rights of women in police custody. It ordered that female suspects should be interrogated only in the presence of a lady officer and not detained in police lock-ups overnight. It also provides protection under Articles 21 and 39A.
    

Impact on Criminal Procedural Law

• Increased Fairness: It ensures that accused persons must have knowledge of their rights and legal representation, which promotes fair legal proceedings.
• Protection from Abuse: The statutory measures for the prevention of arbitrary arrest and detention act as a check on possible abuse of power by law enforcement agencies.
• Judicial Oversight: Judicial statements played a crucial role in interpreting and reaffirming human rights protection, thus shaping legislative and procedural reform.
• Public Trust: A human rights-respecting legal system creates more public confidence and trust in the judicial process.

Conclusion
The integration of protections of human rights into India's criminal procedural legislation reflects the nation's long-established commitment to the rule of law, equality, and justice. The criminal justice system is more than a function for prosecution; it is designed to balance individual rights against the state power so that each step along with the way from arrest and inquiry to trial and sentencing is approached with fairness, transparency, and accountability.

Constitutional requirements under Articles 14, 20, 21, and 22 are the cornerstone of the procedural protection safeguarding people from arbitrary detention, custodial torture, and denial of due process. They are supported by provisions under the CrPC (now BNSS) and IPC (now BNS) statutes, which make these rights of legal representation, bail, and protection against self-incrimination a reality.

Most importantly, the courts have repeatedly enforced these protections in landmark decisions, reading constitutional rights broadly and making them a reality on the ground; especially in cases concerning vulnerable or marginalized groups. These decisions have not only given redress in specific cases but have also institutionalized norms of human treatment, procedural justice, and access to justice.

Together, these constitutional, statutory, and judicial aspects form a strong legal framework that balances both public order and individual liberty. By this, India reasserts its democratic values, reminding us that justice is not merely punishing the guilty, but securing the rights of all especially those against the power of the State.

References:
Case Laws:

• Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
• Bhagalpur Blinding Case (Khatri v. State of Bihar), AIR 1981 SC 928.
• D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416.
• Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369.
• Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., (1994) 4 SCC 260.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597.
• Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1.
• Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1983 SC 378.
• Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1978 SC 1675.

Statutes and Legal Documents:

• The Constitution of India, 1950.
• Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
• Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (repealed).
• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (repealed).

Official Sources (for reference to BNSS and BNS provisions):

• Ministry of Law and Justice. (2023). The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. https://legislative.gov.in
• Ministry of Law and Justice. (2023). The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. https://legislative.gov.in

Written By: Somya Tyagi, Law Student - School of Law , Justice and Governance, Gautam Buddha University