STRUCTURAL BIAS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE : POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON HIGH-PROFILE TRIALS

AUTHOR – CHANDRHAS DWIVEDI* & PROF. DR ANIL KUMAR DIXIT**

* LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

** ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, LAW COLLEGE DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL UNIVERSITY, DEHRADUN, UTTARAKHAND, INDIA

BEST CITATION – CHANDRHAS DWIVEDI & PROF. DR ANIL KUMAR DIXIT, STRUCTURAL BIAS IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE : POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON HIGH-PROFILE TRIALS, INDIAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL REVIEW (IJLR), 6 (9) OF 2026, PG. 40-49, APIS – 3920 – 0001 & ISSN – 2583-2344. DOI – https://doi.org/10.65393/IJLRV6I95

ABSTRACT

This chapter looks at the impact of sensational or high-profile criminal cases in India such as the Jessica Lal murder and the Asaram Bapu rape trials on the procedures, institutions and laws of adjudication. It integrates the legal analysis, case studies, and secondary literature to examine the role of media, intimidation of witnesses, postponement of trials, and policy reforms. We search court rulings and legislation, and create timelines to demonstrate the time and result of cases. Results indicate that both public and media pressure can trigger justice (e.g. reverse wrongful acquittals) as well as undermine fairness (by biased coverage). Renowned cases tend to reveal loopholes: antagonistic witnesses, intimidation, and procrastination are the norm, and courts and lawmakers implement changes. As an illustration, in the wake of the Jessica Lal case, suggested amendments to the CrPC required witness statements to be recorded on oath. The Nirbhaya case led to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 that expanded the rape laws. The judgment of the Supreme Court of 2018, Mahender Chawla, emphasized the responsibility of the State to safeguard witnesses and resulted in a national witness protection scheme (2018). Altogether, high-profile cases indicate systemic weaknesses and prompt legal changes, yet there is a worry about media-influenced bias and delayed justice.

Keywords: High-profile cases; criminal justice; media influence; witness protection; judicial reform; India