Open Access Research Article
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ADVERSARIAL AND INQUISITORIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS: EVALUATING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IN INDIA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, RUSSIA, AND FRANCE
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This comparative research paper
critically evaluates the structural mechanics, theoretical foundations, and
operational dynamics of adversarial (accusatorial) and inquisitorial systems of
criminal justice across five distinct jurisdictions: India, the United States,
the United Kingdom, France, and Russia. Anchored in a non-empirical,
comparative legal methodology, the study addresses the core tension between
procedural due process and substantive truth-seeking. It analyzes how
party-driven presentation, passive judicial umpiring, and exclusionary
evidentiary rules in common law jurisdictions contrast with judge-led
inquiries, state-compiled written dossiers (dossier de la procédure / ugolovnoye
delo), and holistic judicial evaluation (intime conviction) in
continental civil law traditions. Through a contextual evaluation of landmark
jurisprudence—including Miranda v. Arizona, Brady v. Maryland,
and Crawford v. Washington (USA); Woolmington v. DPP and R v.
Ward (UK); DK Basu v. State of West Bengal, Nandini Satpathy v.
P.L. Dani, and the Best Bakery Case (India); Brusco v. France
(ECtHR); and Constitutional Court Judgments No. 13-P and No. 4-P (Russia)—the
study highlights systemic vulnerabilities inherent in both paradigms. It
demonstrates how pure adversarial passivity frequently collapses into
administrative plea bargaining or chronic docket stagnation, whereas
unmonitored inquisitorial authority risks compromising defence rights and
judicial neutrality during early pre-trial investigations. Focusing on the
crisis of pendency, delayed investigations, and low conviction rates in India
under its modernized statutory framework (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam), the
paper outlines actionable reform pathways. It posits that a purely adversarial
model is structurally inadequate for complex modern litigation and advocates
for a synthesized hybrid framework. By incorporating proactive judicial
evidence evaluation under Section 167 of the BSA, establishing specialized
judicial investigative supervision, instituting mandatory UK-style pre-trial
case management, and structurally separating police investigative functions,
India can resolve procedural delays and enhance truth-finding capacity while
preserving constitutional guarantees under Article 20(3) and Article 21.
Published Paper
Author Details
Authors: ASWATHI P.M.
Registration ID: 1013191 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA13191
Year: Sep-2026 | Volume: 3 | Issue: 6
Approved ISSN: 2582-6433 | Country: Delhi, India
Page No.: 1119-1145
Article Information
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ADVERSARIAL AND INQUISITORIAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS: EVALUATING LEGAL FRAMEWORKS IN INDIA, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM, RUSSIA, AND FRANCE
Authors: ASWATHI P.M.
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Volume 3
- Issue 6
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- AbbreviationIJLRA
- ISSN2582-6433
- AccessOpen Access
- LicenseCC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.