Adversarial & Inquisitorial System
The legal systems used in criminal and civil trials around the world can broadly be
categorised into two types: the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system. These systems
differ in their approach to resolving disputes, gathering evidence, and conducting trials. While
the adversarial system is predominant in common law countries such as India, the United
Kingdom, and the United States, the inquisitorial system is prevalent in civil law countries
like France, Germany, and many other European nations.
Adversarial System:
The adversarial system, also known as the accusatorial system, is a judicial framework
where two opposing parties—the prosecution and the defence—present their cases before a
neutral judge or jury. The judge acts as an umpire who ensures that the trial adheres to legal
rules and procedures, but it is primarily up to the parties involved to gather evidence, present
their arguments, and cross-examine witnesses. This system is rooted in the belief that truth
emerges from the competition between the parties. The key elements of this system are:
In criminal trials, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of
proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The judge plays a passive role, ensuring that the trial follows due process. The judge does
not interfere with the collection of evidence but makes decisions based on what is
presented in court.
The prosecution (the victim’s advocate) bears the burden of proving the accused’s guilt,
and the defence (the accused’s advocate) is tasked with refuting the evidence.
Both parties are given equal opportunities to present their cases, cross-examine witnesses,
and argue the merits of the evidence before the court.
The accused has the right to keep silent and cannot be compelled to testify against
themselves.
Inquisitorial System:
The inquisitorial system is characterised by the active role of the judge, who takes charge of
the investigation, gathers evidence, and questions witnesses. The judge leads the trial and has
considerable discretion over the proceedings. This system is based on the idea that the court,
1
rather than the parties, should be responsible for discovering the truth. The key elements of
this system are:
The judge controls the investigation, interrogates the accused, and questions witnesses.
The judge’s primary responsibility is to uncover the truth. Investigation primarily rests
with the judicial police.
The parties—the prosecution and defence—play a more passive role, suggesting
questions or routes of inquiry but not controlling the evidence-gathering process.
Like the adversarial system, the inquisitorial system also upholds the presumption of
innocence until guilt is proven.
The judge is tasked with actively seeking out the truth, rather than acting as a neutral
observer.
In some versions of the inquisitorial system, the accused may be compelled to testify and
answer questions posed by the judge.
Difference between Adversarial and Inquisitorial System:
Sl. Aspects Adversarial System Inquisitorial System
No.
1 Role of the Judge Passive referee, ensures legal Active role, leads the investigation
procedures are followed. and questions witnesses.
2 Role of Lawyers Plays the central role; they present They have a limited role; lawyers
evidence and cross-examine the assist the judges but judges control
witnesses. the trial process.
3 Gathering & It is controlled by the parties- Judge is responsible for gathering and
Evaluation of prosecution and defense. evaluating evidence
Evidence
4 Burden of Proof Prosecution must prove guilt beyond a Judge evaluates evidence directly to
reasonable doubt. establish guilt or innocence
5 Rights of the Has the right to remain silent and Accused may be compelled to answer
Accused cannot be compelled to testify against questions; they have limited right to
himself. remain silent.
6 Decision Taken Judges decide the case based on the Judge makes decisions based on the
arguments and evidence presented by evidence they have gathered
both sides.
7 Efficacy Leads to correct result, holding the Leads to correct result, holding the
guilty liable or acquitting the innocent. guilty liable or acquitting the
But it is more time consuming due to innocent. It is less time consuming.
2
lengthy process.
