Governance and the Criminal Justice System in India (GS Paper 2, Government Policies & Interventions)
Context
- A recent case involving a fabricated rape accusation and subsequent wrongful imprisonment has highlighted various systemic shortcomings within India's criminal justice system (CJS).
- These deficiencies, coupled with societal complexities, demand urgent reform and attention.
Understanding the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in India
Overview
- The criminal justice system of any state comprises agencies and processes established by governments to administer criminal justice, control crime, and impose punishment on law violators.
- India's CJS is based on the Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860.
Constitutional Framework
- Article 246: Places police, public order, courts, prisons, reformatories, and other allied institutions in the State List.
- Union Laws: Followed by the Police, Judiciary, and Correctional Institutes, forming the basic organs of the criminal justice system.
Structure of the CJS
1. Investigation by Police:
- Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Allows the investigation officer to question anyone who may know about the case and write down their statement.
2. Prosecution of Case by Prosecutors:
- Prosecutors charge an accused with a crime and try to prove their guilt in court.
3. Determination of Guilt by Courts:
- Courts pronounce sentences, considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the offender's background, and the likelihood of their reform.
4. Correction through Prison System:
- Imprisonment in India focuses on reformation and rehabilitation through education, labor, vocational training, and programs like yoga and meditation.
Challenges in the Criminal Justice System
1. Pendency of Cases:
- Statistics: Over 5 crore cases were pending across all courts in India as of July 2023. 87.4% in subordinate courts, 12.4% in High Courts, and nearly 1,82,000 cases pending for over 30 years in the Supreme Court.
- Impact: Delays in justice delivery, increased burden on the judicial system, and prolonged detention of undertrials.
2. Judicial Vacancies:
- Current Scenario: India has only 21 judges per million people against a target of 50 judges per million.
- Consequence: Leads to delays, overburdened judiciary, and inefficiency in handling cases.
3. Slow Progress in Fast-track Courts:
- Issues: New courts with necessary infrastructure and dedicated judges are not set up for fast-track purposes. Existing courts are typically designated as fast-track courts, requiring judges to manage both regular and expedited cases.
- Effect: Ineffectiveness in expeditious case disposal, defeats the purpose of fast-track courts.
4. Abuse of Power by Police:
- Accusations: Unwarranted arrest, unlawful imprisonment, wrongful search, harassment, custodial violence, and deaths.
- Trend: Police acquiring more power under prevention laws.
- Outcome: Erosion of public trust, violation of human rights, and miscarriage of justice.
5. Complex Mechanism:
- Observation: The justice system is too complex, especially for marginalized people, leading to their exclusion.
- Impact: Vulnerable sections of society are marginalized, and justice becomes inaccessible to them.
6. Perceived Biases:
- Demographic Data: Adivasis, Christians, Dalits, Muslims, and Sikhs are over-represented in Indian prisons.
- Implication: Suggests systemic biases and discrimination within the criminal justice system.
7. Violations of Human Rights in Prison:
- Issues: Use of physical force, torture, custodial rape, molestation, and other forms of sexual abuse.
- Effect: Violation of prisoners' rights, psychological trauma, and perpetuation of injustice.
Measures for Reforming the Criminal Justice System
1. Bail Reforms:
- Judicial Principle: "Bail is rule and jail is an exception" established by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Balchand alias Baliya (1978).
- Law Commission's 268th Report: Stresses the need to curtail detention length and revisit bail laws to prevent undue imprisonment.
2. Reviving Fast-track Courts:
- Objective: Expeditious disposal of long-pending sessions cases to make these courts truly fast-track.
- Strategy: Setting up new courts with necessary infrastructure and dedicated judges specifically for fast-track purposes.
3. Legal Aid Reform:
- Focus: Training, mentoring, and building capacities of young professionals to improve socio-legal services.
- Goal: Make the CJS more effective and accessible to marginalized communities.
4. Filling Judicial Vacancies:
- Need: Filling judicial vacancies is crucial for a functional and fair judicial system.
- Solution: Explore All India Judicial Service (AIJS) for recruiting judges at additional district and district levels.
5. Application of AI in Criminal Case Management:
- Potential: AI can assist in decisions about bail, sentencing, and parole, and assess recidivism risk.
- Implementation: Integrate AI tools to enhance efficiency and accuracy in the judicial process.
Commissions Set Up for CJS Reform
1. National Police Commission (NPC):
- Recommendation: Judicial enquiry in cases of custodial death or rapes.
2. Malimath Committee:
- Recommendation: Separate police force for maintaining law and order and crime investigation.
3. All India Jail Reforms Committee (Mulla Committee):
- Emphasis: Recruitment of trained staff for jail administration and establishing a correctional service.
4. Krishnan Iyer Committee:
- Recommendation: Appointment of women staff for handling women and child offenders.
Judicial Pronouncements on CJS Reformation
1. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006):
- Directive: Establishment of a state security commission in each state to oversee police work and prevent influence.
2. S.P. Anand v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007):
- Ruling: Prisoners have basic rights to a healthy life despite restrictions on liberty and free movement.
3. State of Gujarat v. High Court of Gujarat (1988):
- Judgment: Reasonable wages must be paid to prisoners for their work or labor.
4. Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979):
- Observation: Keeping undertrials in jail longer than their punishment is a violation of their fundamental rights under Article 21.
5. Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration (1980):
- Verdict: Handcuffing is inhuman and unreasonable; accused persons should not be handcuffed initially.
Conclusion
- India's criminal justice system faces numerous challenges such as a backlog of cases, inefficiency, lack of resources, poor infrastructure, and insufficient personnel training.
- Efforts are being made to reform and improve the system, particularly to ensure better access to justice for marginalized communities.
- Effective implementation of these reforms is crucial to achieving a fair, efficient, and humane criminal justice system in India.
