INTRODUCTION

Whenever a matter is referred to the court,the

process of adjudication takes place. However, the
different methods of adjudication adopted wholly
depends on the legal system prevailing in that
country. There are two essential types of
mechanisms that help in adjudicating the matters:

Adversarial Legal system

It is derived from the word Adversary, which can be

described as 'one's opponent in acontest, conflict,
or dispute'[1]. It got its genesis in England around
the 13th century,and it was developed by Catholic
Christians. Thus, asense of rivalry is brought by the
lawyers of both sides in aparticular case. The
Prosecution and Defence confront each other
leading to the revelation of truth. In matters of
criminaloffences, matters initiated by the
prosecution is represented by the state, and the
defendant is represented by a defence attorney
whereby they plead for innocence. In this system,
Previous decisions made by higher Courts form a
precedent that willbind the lower Courts(2]. Thus,
to win the cases in their favour, lawyers seek and
present the best pieces of evidence supporting their
client before the court. The role of Judges in this
system is very limited and restrained, whereby they
are compelled to a great extent to decide the case ^
based on the evidence and facts put forth by both
parties. Hence, the judge decides the case as an
parties. Hence, the judge decides the case as an
observer and decides the case as per the conformity
and efficacy of arguments presented.[3]

There are several demerits of the adversarial system

which can affect the cases toa large extent.The
parties in acase may go for lingering the matters in
order to collect shreds of evidence which can
further take up a lot of time in adjudicating the
matters[4). There may be a scope of bringing fake
witnesses before the court so as to convince the
judge. It also provides an opportunity for lawyers to
make a lot of money owing to their personal interest
with their clients, thereby making a big hole in the
pockets of clients. Lawyers with utmost zeal may go
tothe extent of pressing the facts in such a way that
an acrimonious environment is built around the
matter. Also, the rights of the accused matter to a
great extent and the court allows the accused to
avail the same. It is crucial to note that the
adversarial system is prevalent in almost allof the
common law countries. Such countries may have a
materialistic approach and pave the way for
capitalism.

" Inquisitorial Legal System

As the name itself suggest, it is developed witha

sense of curiosity whereby seeking the truth is of
paramount significance. Judges in an inquisitorial
legal system tend to be free to make decisions on a
case-by-case basis. Thus, the role of the judges in
this system is very active, and they go to the extent
 " Inquisitorial Legal System

As the name itself suggest, it is developed with a

sense of curiosity whereby seeking the truth is of
paramount significance. Judges in an inquisitorial
legal system tend to be free to make decisions on a
case-by-case basis. Thus, the role of the judges in
this system is very active, and they go to the extent
of extractionof truth on their own. It is the duty of
the court to ensure that no material fact is
concealed and every bit of evidence is considered
while adjudicating the matters. The active
participation ofjudges in this system helps in
expediting the matter to provide adequate relief to
the aggrieved party in a just manner. However, it is
crucial to note that the rights and privacy of the
accused person are overlooked to collect evidence
and help in adjudicating the matter, unlike the
adversarial system. It is being followed by civil law
counties such as Italy, France, Germany, New
Zealand, Australia etc.(5] However, the participation
of the court can come up as that of biased opinion
with the virtue of getting immersed with the
inclusion of subjectivity. Also, it restricts the expert
opinions in matters which can largely reveal the
truth of the case.

THELEGAL SYSTEM
PREVALENT IN INDIA

India has a long and tumultuous history of

THE LEGAL SYSTEM
PREVALENT IN INDIA

India has a long and tumultuous history of

colonialism/6]. However, based on thethesis and
antithesis of both systems, India establisheda
hybrid system of legislation in this situation. This
follows in the footsteps of India's 'Quasi-federal'
structure, as stated by KC Wheare(7]. Thus, India
largely relies on the adversarial system of
adjudication, but it also has some concepts whereby
the Inquisitorial system is followed. For instance,
plea bargaining, which is incorporated in the
Criminal Procedure Code, goes against the real
ethos of the adversarial system[8]. With the sense of
rigidity and strictness existing in the adversarial
system, some matters can't come to a compromise.
But with the help of plea bargaining, matters can be
settled by pressing for forgiveness and having a
possibility of acquittal for the defendant.

AN IDEAL LEGAL SYSTEM

In future,a mix of features existing in both the

system would be prevalent as both have their pros
and cons, which can serve as a loophole for the
lawyers to convince the judges and win cases in
their own favour. Some principles of the Adversarial
system may be used so as to spill out the truth with
logical and scientificreasoning, In other instances
AN IDEAL LEGAL SYSTEM

In future,a mix of features existing in both the

system would be prevalent as both have their pros
and cons, which can serve as a loophole for the
lawyers to convince the judges and win cases in
their own favour. Some principles of the Adversarial
system may be used so as to spill out the truth with
logical and scientific reasoning. In other instances
whereby the minimalization of risk and flexibility is
required to offset the demerits of other systems,
adopting the inquisitorial system may be helpful.

CONCLUSION

It is a big concern if a case is decided in favour of

one party or the other. Therefore, a reasonable
procedure isdeveloped step by step to achieve a
specified purpose: to pursue the defendant, help
the survivor, and ensure a fair jury[9]. The court
must strive for the revelation of truth and mitigate
the risks of being inaccurate in adjudicating the
matters due to which an innocent may suffer. These
methods all have their processes, advantages, and
disadvantages. The Adversarial and Inquisitorial
systems are both called into question. Hence, upon
the discretion of the court, the principles based on
the adversarial and inquisitorial legal system may
be applied on a case-to-case basis whereby the
most suitable mechanism is chosen, and the justice
isserved rightfully without leaving any scope for
CONCLUSION

It isa big concern if acase is decided in favour of

one party or the other. Therefore, a reasonable
procedure isdeveloped step by step to achieve a
specified purpose: to pursue the defendant, help
the survivor, and ensure a fair jury[9]. The court
must strive for the revelation of truth and mitigate
the risks of being inaccurate in adjudicating the
matters due to which an innocent may suffer. These
methods all have their processes, advantages, and
disadvantages. The Adversarial and Inquisitorial
systems are both called into question. Hence, upon
the discretion of the court, the principles based on
the adversarial and inquisitorial legal system may
be applied on acase-to-case basis whereby the
most suitable mechanism is chosen,and the justice
isserved rightfully without leaving any scope for
ambiguity and despotism.

Author(s) Name:Chaitanya Vohra (Chanakya

National Law University, Patna)

References:

[1] AndrewPerkins, 'Differences between

Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal System'
(Ashfords, 1 Oct 2015)
https://www.ashfords.co.uk/news-and
media/general/differences-between-an-adversa ial
and-an-inquisitorial-legal-system accessed 23
January 2022
 Adversarial versus
inquisitorial legal systems
The role of public prosecutors may differ
depending on the legal tradition adopted in a
particular country. Two types of legal traditions
dominate the nature of investigation and
adjudication around the world: adversarial and
inquisitorial legal systems. Common law countries
use an adversarial system todetermine facts in the
adjudication process. The prosecution and
defence compete against each other, and the
judge serves as a referee to ensure fairness to the
accused, and that the legal rules criminal
procedure followed. The adversarial system
assumes that the best way to get to the truth of a
matter is through a competitive process to
determine the facts and application of the law
accurately.

The inguisitorial system is associated with civil law

legal systems, and it has existed for many
centuries. It is characterized by extensive pre-trial
investigation and interrogations with the objective
to avoid bringing an innocent person to trial. The
inquisitorial process can be described as an official
scertain the truth,
inquiry to ascertain truth, whereas the
adversarial system uses a competitive process
between prosecution and defence to determine
the facts. The inquisitorial process grants more
assumes that the best way to get to the truth of a
matter is through a competitive process to
determine the facts and application of the law
accurately.

The inquisitorial system is associated with civil law

legal systems, and it has existed for many
centuries. It is characterized by extensive pre-trial
investigation andinterrogations with the objective
to avoid bringing an innocent person to trial. The
inguisitorial process can be describedas an official
inquiry to ascertain the truth, whereas the
adversarial system uses a competitive process
between prosecution and defence to determine
the facts. The inquisitorial process grants
power to the judge who oversees the process,
whereas the judge in the adversarial system serves
more as an arbiter between claims of the
prosecution and defence (Dammer and Albanese,
2014; Reichel, 2017).

Both these systems have variations around the

world, as different countries have modified their
criminal procedure in various ways over the years
in balancing the interests of the State
apprehending and adjudicating offenders with the
interests of individual citizens who may be caught
up in the legal process. As this Module will
these different legal traditions impact the ways in
which criminal cases are investigated and
prosecuted.