Guilty Until Proven Innocent? Reverse Burden of Proof in Indian Criminal Law

Author(s)	Ms. Madiha Niyaz Hakak
Country	India
Abstract	The maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat the burden of proof lies upon the one who affirms, not the one who denies sits at the very heart of criminal justice. Yet Indian law, both historically and in its contemporary statutory framework, has carved out a significant space for the doctrine of reverse onus, placing the burden of proof upon the accused in a wide array of legislative enactments. This article examines the doctrinal foundation of reverse burden, its constitutional legitimacy under Articles 14, 20, and 21 of the Indian Constitution, and its application across statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Drawing upon landmark judicial pronouncements, comparative legal analysis, and human rights scholarship, the article argues that while reverse onus provisions may be justifiable in carefully delimited circumstances, the Indian legislative practice has expanded them beyond defensible limits, raising serious concerns about the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.
Keywords	Keywords: Reverse Burden of Proof, Presumption of Innocence, NDPS Act, PMLA, UAPA, Article 21, Fair Trial, Indian Criminal Law, Evidence Act
Published In	Volume 8, Issue 2, March-April 2026
Published On	2026-04-14

About IJFMR Fees & Payment Current Issue Publication Archive	Submit Research Paper Track Submission Status Publication Guidelines Publication Ethics Peer Review & Plagiarism	Join as a Reviewer Editors & Reviewers Reviewer Referral Program Get Reviewer Membership Certi.	Website/Journal Policies Usage Policy Content Policies Privacy Policy

Contact Us		+91-9687-828-838	editor@ijfmr.com

International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research