Laid down in the Indian Evidence Act which, as a long established legal safeguard to protect accused people, has always disallowed confessions to the police in court proceedings on the grounds that they were unreliable.
Section 21 of the new act shifts the burden of proof on to the accused, who is presumed guilty in four particular situations: if unauthorized arms have been found in an area specified by the government; if the prosecution produces a confession made to anyone who is not a police officer; if a co-accused has made a confession made to anyone who is not a police officer; if a co-accused has made a confession implicating the accused; or if there is expert evidence of fingerprints at the scene of the crime. This provision of the act is contrary to the presumption of innocence which is customary in Indian law and to an important principle enshrined in Article 14 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which India is a party. The act also makes bail much more difficult to obtain. Indeed, since the act was passed, bail applications have often been rejected, especially when made by Sikhs.
In August 1987 the Minister of State for Home Affairs, P. Chidambaram, said that special courts had been established under the act in 12 states and Union Territories – including Jammu and Kashmir, Haryana, Gujarat, Rajasthan and the Union Territory of Chandigarh – and added that changes had to be made in the act because of the many acquittals. He cited the case of Punjab where, he said, only six out of the 1,927 people arrested under the act had been ‘convicted. He added that the act was intended to deal “with an extraordinary situation” and would be in force for two years. Amnesty International believes that several of the act’s provisions, notably those changing the presumption of innocence and the mandatory provision for trials to be held in camera, could constitute a departure from international human rights standards, and that the loose definition of “disruptive activities” could permit people to be held for peacefully expressing political views.
