The Presumption Of Innocence Vs. Reverse Burden Clauses: A Constitutional Critique
- IJLLR Journal
- Nov 21
- 1 min read
Varsha Singh, BBA LLB (Hons.), University of Mumbai Law Academy
ABSTRACT
The presumption of innocence is one of the most cherished values of criminal law and constitutional jurisprudence. Rooted in Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and implicit in Articles 20 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, it requires that no person be punished unless the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet, Indian legislatures have enacted several special statutes, including the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS), the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), that contain reverse burden clauses. These provisions shift evidentiary burdens onto the accused, effectively diluting the golden thread of “innocent until proven guilty.” This article critically examines the constitutional validity of such clauses, their compatibility with Articles 20 and 21, comparative approaches in other jurisdictions, and evolving Indian judicial trends. It concludes that while some reverse burdens may be justified in combating grave offences, they must be strictly constrained by proportionality, foundational fact requirements, and meaningful safeguards to preserve the essence of constitutional liberty.
Keywords: Presumption of Innocence, Reverse Burden, NDPS, PMLA, UAPA, POCSO, Article 20, Article 21, Constitutional Law.
