Adversarial and inquisitorial systems

The essentials

There are two broad models of conducting a trial. In the adversarial (accusatorial) system, followed in India, England and the United States, two opposing parties present their cases and the judge acts as a neutral umpire who decides on the basis of evidence produced by the parties. In the inquisitorial system, followed in countries such as France and Germany, the judge plays an active role in investigating facts, questioning witnesses and directing the collection of evidence.

Key points

• Adversarial features: party-driven presentation of evidence; cross-examination; strict rules of evidence; presumption of innocence; the judge does not investigate.
• Inquisitorial features: judge-led inquiry; greater reliance on written records (dossiers); the aim is to discover the truth rather than to decide which side argued better.
• Strengths of adversarial: strong protection of the accused's rights; neutral judge. Weaknesses: the outcome may depend on the skill of lawyers; long and costly.
• Strengths of inquisitorial: search for truth; less dependence on lawyers' skill. Weaknesses: risk of the judge forming an early view.
• India's mix: India is basically adversarial, but some laws give judges power to question witnesses and call for evidence, adding inquisitorial elements. The Malimath Committee (2003) on criminal justice reforms suggested adopting useful features of the inquisitorial system.

Exam tips

• Associate "umpire" with adversarial and "investigator" with inquisitorial.
• Expect questions that describe a courtroom scene and ask which system it reflects.

Common mistakes

• Thinking India follows a purely inquisitorial model because judges sometimes ask questions.
• Assuming the inquisitorial system has no lawyers – lawyers still take part, but the judge leads.