3. Illusions of a Process: Violating the Right to Fair Trial Components of Fair Trial • Proceedings must be premised on a fair investigation.215 • Principles of natural justice consist of the following: Decision makers must give prior notice to the affected persons and an opportunity to them to make representation. Moreover, person cannot judge a matter in which they have a personal bias.216 • There should be a calm atmosphere in the trial. Neither parties nor witnesses should feel intimidated in the proceedings or threatened or forced to give false evidence.217 • Trial cannot be hasty, stage-managed, tailored or partisan.218 • Parties must be able to adduce evidence.219 • Evidence must be appreciated in accordance with settled legal principles.220 • Evidence should be evaluated in totality and not by an isolated scrutiny.221 We can gain from reading these constitutional principles in light of the conceptualisation of the right to fair trial under international human rights law. Most relevant here is the international human right to equality of arms. The principle of equality of arms ensures that legal proceedings strike a fair balance between the parties involved, preventing undue advantage to one side and ensuring that the process operates equitably. It is a cornerstone of the right to equality before courts and tribunals, essential for safeguarding an individual’s access to an effective remedy. For such a remedy to be meaningful, every party must be placed on equal footing, with the opportunity to contest evidence, present their case, and respond to arguments without procedural or systemic disadvantages. The principle of equality of arms is incorporated in Article 14(1) of the ICCPR, which guarantees equality before courts and tribunals. General Comment 32 by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) clarifies that the principle applies to both criminal and civil proceedings and mandates that each party must have the opportunity to contest arguments and evidence presented by the other. Furthermore, Article 13 of the ICCPR, addressing the expulsion of aliens, is interpreted in light of Article 14 and its due process guarantees, including equality of arms. In Robinson v. Jamaica, the HRC found a violation of Article 14(1) due to the denial of an adjournment for the author to secure legal representation, even though multiple adjournments had been granted to the prosecution. This case underscores how procedural imbalances undermine equality of arms and deny parties an effective opportunity to participate and defend themselves in legal proceedings. 215 Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors v. State of Gujarat (2019) 17 SCC 1 [18]. Mahipal Singh Tomar v. State of U.P. (2013) 16 SCC 771 [15]. 217 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (n 212) [36]. 218 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (n 212) [38]. 219 Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (2007) 2 SCC 258 [12]. 220 Noor Aga (n 202) [113]. 221 Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (n 212) [37]. 222 HRC ‘General Comment No. 32’ (n 47). 223 HRC ‘Frank Robinson v. Jamaica’ (30 March 1989) UN Doc CCPR/C/35/D/223/1987 para 10.4. 216 75