3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial 3.4 Violating the Principle of Equality of Arms Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution have been expansively interpreted to include a capacious right to fair trial. Article 14 encompasses the principles of natural justice, rule of law, and non-arbitrariness,205 while Article 21 guarantees that procedure must be ‘just, fair, and reasonable,’206 and the law itself must be substantively constitutional.207 Articles 14 and 21 do not operate in isolation; the procedure under Article 21 must meet the requirements of Article 14.208 Article 14 guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws to all people within the country.209 Article 21 guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.210 74 Articles 14 and 21 are effectively protected when citizens have access to an impartial and independent judicial forum that upholds the principles of adjudication.211 Trials must aim to ascertain the truth and be fair to all parties involved.212 There are two components of this. First, the forum an individual has access to must be an effective adjudicatory mechanism. Disputes should be decided by impartial judges who are independent of the executive.213 Second, hearings must comply with the requirements of fair trial. Emerging from administrative law, the concept is built on the principles of natural justice.214 Fair trial includes the right to have notice of the other side’s case, bring evidence and argue. 205 E.P Royappa v. State of TN (1974) 4 SCC 3 [85]; M. Nagaraj & Ors v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212 [118]; Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 [101]. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248 [7], [48], [85]. 207 Bachan Singh v State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 684 [40]; K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1 [291]. 208 Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (n 206) [7]. 209 Constitution of India 1950, art 14. 210 Constitution of India 1950, art 21. 211 Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan (2016) 8 SCC 509 [34]; Madras Bar Association (MBA I) (n 103) [102]; Rattiram & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 516 [42]. 212 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2006) 3 SCC 374 [36]; Imtiyaz Ahmad v. State of U.P. (2012) 2 SCC 688 [25]; Anita Kushwaha (n 211) [31]. 213 Anita Kushwaha (n 211) [31]. 214 Anita Kushwaha (n 211) [34]; Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502 [137]; Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226; Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81. 206