By — Shyamal Sinha
The rule of law rests upon certain foundational principles of criminal justice, foremost among them the presumption of innocence, respect for human dignity, the protection of personal liberty, and the principle that arrest and pre-trial detention should remain exceptional measures rather than the norm. In constitutional democracies, liberty may be curtailed before conviction only where such detention is strictly necessary to secure the administration of justice, such as where there exists a substantial risk of absconding, destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, or obstruction of the investigation. Neither the gravity of the allegations nor public sentiment can, by themselves, justify pre-trial incarceration. Rather, the decision to detain must satisfy the tests of legality, necessity, and proportionality.
Courts across jurisdictions have increasingly recognized that advanced age, deteriorating health, and well-established social ties substantially diminish the likelihood of flight. Similarly, where an accused is a widely recognised public figure with an identifiable residence and extensive public responsibilities, the risk of absconding is ordinarily far lower than in the case of an anonymous or transient offender. Consequently, the continued deprivation of liberty must be supported by compelling evidence demonstrating a genuine and continuing necessity for detention in the light of the cardinal principle that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty through a fair trial. Where effective alternatives, including conditional bail, restrictions on movement, surrender of travel documents, regular reporting obligations, or other supervisory measures, are capable of securing the accused’s presence during trial and protecting the integrity of the proceedings, they should ordinarily be preferred over continued incarceration.
However, the imprisonment of a ninety-five-year-old Chairman, Mr Lee, inevitably raises questions regarding the proportionality of custodial detention and the State’s obligation to ensure humane treatment of persons awaiting trial. Viewed through the lens of the rule of law, Chairman Lee’s continued detention prompts an important inquiry: where the accused is ninety-five years old, publicly identifiable, and capable of being subjected to stringent bail conditions, does continued pre-trial detention remain a measure of necessity, or does it undermine the constitutional promise of the presumption of innocence and personal liberty? Viewed in its entirety, the constitutional balance weighs in favour of Chairman Lee’s release on appropriately tailored bail conditions while ensuring that the criminal proceedings continue unhindered and the interests of justice remain fully protected.
Indian human rights lawyer Mr. Harpreet Singh expressed concern that Chairman Lee’s continued detention should be measured against the principles of human dignity, the presumption of innocence, and South Korea’s long-standing democratic commitment to the rule of law.
