The Exclusionary Rule: Analysis Of Various Countries In Contrast To India

Goutham Balu, Christ (Deemed to be University)

ABSTRACT

Criminal trials require evidence and are often collected by invading a person's privacy. The exclusion rule of unlawfully obtained evidence has been introduced in many countries. However, the rule creates a dilemma as to whether the individual Right or the state's interest and justice need to be prioritised over the other. The article addresses the underlying principles and doctrinal methodologies to the admission of derivative evidence in two distinct legal systems: the United States and the European Court of Human Rights. However, the rationales for exclusion that prevail in other jurisdictions—moral integrity and the protection of rights—are generally thought to entail the suppression of primary evidence rather than the suppression of derivative evidence, like in the United States, where deterrence is the only justification. This paper also examines the Supreme Court's decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India through the lens of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine (Exclusionary rule). Different courts in different parts of the world have consistently upheld this principle as an essential component of the Right to privacy. The 94th Law Commission Report was cited, which suggested adding additional provisions to the Indian Evidence Act. The paper suggests a new approach for excluding unlawful evidence, which seeks to balance criminal evidence's intrinsic and extrinsic purposes through procedural values. It also argues that the different doctrinal approaches are primarily dependent on the degree to which each legal system adheres to considerations associated with the "crime control model" and that a narrowly construed discretionary regime, based solely on due process considerations, is preferable to a rigid regime because it allows the courts to avoid the detrimental ramifications of exclusion.

Keywords: Unlawful evidence, Exclusionary rule, Derivative evidence, Privacy, Discretionary regime.