Why Recent Criminal Law Reforms Might Not Fast-Track Justice in India

The law serves as a powerful catalyst for societal transformation and acts as a dynamic tool capable of shaping the very fabric of our communities. Criminal law in particular plays a crucial role in adapting the legal system to the evolving needs of society, ensuring justice is not only served but is also reflective of contemporary values. Though criminal law has been amended several times, enabling the legal framework to keep pace with societal changes, technological advancements, and emerging challenges, the Indian Criminal Justice System has been facing challenges in delivering justice, resulting in a prolonged delay for litigants, complainants, victims, and accused. It was long overdue to overhaul the penal laws, and no political party could take on the massive task.

The massive effort of updating and modifying the laws is indeed overwhelming, and it is a reflection of the elected government's political resolve to erase the legacy of colonialism. With the assumption that justice will be served promptly and that the backlog of criminal cases will be history, the recently passed laws have been hailed as a game changer for the nation's criminal justice system. This has given rise to a newfound optimism. The claim that these laws just renumberate the provisions of laws that have been repealed ignores the goal, vision, purpose, and extensive consequences of the recently passed legislation.

Before we continue, it should be noted that Parliament is well within its rights to introduce new laws to replace the IPC, CrPC, and Evidence Act under Entry 1, 2, and 12 of the Concurrent List. However, it should also be noted that law and order, law enforcement, and prisons are state subjects and that it is the primary responsibility of the individual states to maintain police forces, courts, and prisons within their borders. Each state's Home Department is affiliated with the prosecution department as well. The police, prosecution, courts, and jail system—as well as witnesses—are the fundamental foundations of the criminal justice system. The cooperative efforts of these four are crucial to the criminal justice system's success.

The country has already seen how ineffective the "getting tough on crime" strategy has been. So, the question is: Is it possible to streamline the criminal justice system solely by passing legislation that doesn't deal with the root causes? An attempt has been made here to answer this question with reference to the functions and operations of the four pillars to analyze the underlying root cause of delays in the Indian criminal justice system.

Police

In Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court released extensive directions for police reforms; however, as of right now, these guidelines have not been operationalized. Recruitment, posting, transfer, promotion, training, salary, and accountability problems all cause delays in the police department. Nearly every committee or commission from the National Police Commission—Mooshahary Committee (1977–2004)—established to look into matters relating to the police department has brought up these issues.

The police system is still governed by archaic colonial-era law, i.e., the Police Act, 1861. Only 17 states and UTs have amended their laws in accordance with the Model Police Act, 2006, and 12 states and UTs have not responded, as noted by the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs in its 237th Report on Police: Training, Modernization, and Reforms (10 February 2022). In the police department, nationwide, 21 percent of seats are unfilled, amounting to 5,31,737 seats, against the sanctioned strength of 26,23,225 authorized seats. The current police population ratio against the filled seats is 152.80 per lakh population which makes the Indian police force as most weak in the world and which is far lower than recommended by U.N. i.e. 222 per lakh population. The recommendation that the law and order division be kept separate from the investigation wing has only been fully implemented by six jurisdictions. The absence of adequate training facilities and the need to update curricula, syllabi, and training modules have drawn criticism.

Violation of fundamental rights in various ways has been a major concern in police operations. For instance, criminal processes begin with the reporting and investigation of crimes, and the biggest challenges to police operations have always been the non-registration of first information reports (FIR) and the issue of arbitrary arrest. The Supreme Court repeatedly held that a police officer cannot make an arrest just because he is authorized to do so in a series of rulings that began with Joginder Kumar in 1993 and ended with Satinder Kumar Antil in 2022. In the Lalita Kumari (2014) case, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of Section 154, CrPC, and said that registering a FIR is mandatory. The Supreme Court harshly condemned the practice of submitting a chargesheet before the investigation is finished in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India (2023) in order to thwart the accused's entitlement to be freed on default bail.

Most recently, in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India (2023), the Supreme Court made it clear that the ED must provide the reasons for the arrest to the accused in writing, allowing them to put forward their own defense. Earlier, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in Arnesh Kumar (2014) stating that 498-A cases will not automatically result in an arrest. Referring to acquittal cases can help one comprehend the shortcomings in the investigation or the poor quality of the investigation that give rise to inherent vulnerabilities in the prosecution's case. For example, in Rahul v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022), there were substantial doubts about the DNA evidence's provenance, testing, storage, and handling.

Prosecution

In an adversarial system, the role of prosecutors assumes significance, as their main role is to bring out the truth in a biased manner in the greater public interest without thinking of weakness in the prosecution case. At the entry level, young law graduates are appointed as prosecutors by conducting competitive examinations, which raises concerns about their practical experience in conducting efficient prosecution in the trial courts. The prosecution wing has been made independent by establishing the Directorate of Prosecution. However, the question of political interference, lack of autonomy, and independence still surfaces due to overlapping functions with the police department. Insufficient resources, such as forensic laboratories and support staff, can impede the prosecution's ability to build strong cases and present evidence effectively. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai (2014), the Supreme Court expressed dismay at the acquittal of the accused due to lapses of the investigating authorities and prosecution officers and held that in cases of acquittal, the responsible investigating and prosecution officers must be identified and appropriate disciplinary action must be taken against them.

Judicial Setup

The government acknowledged that the judge population ratio in India is 21 per million people in a recent statement to the Rajya Sabha. This figure is far lower than the recommendations made by the Law Commission and the Supreme Court i.e. 50 per million people.

Despite the Supreme Court's impressive numerical performance under current Chief Justice D. Y. Chandrachud (52,191 cases were resolved by the court in 2023), the National Judicial Data Grid indicates that there are 4.43 crore cases that are still pending in Indian courts. These cases are pending in India due to a number of substantial challenges, including the low judge population ratio, inadequate court infrastructure, a shortage of ministerial officers, an excessive workload, inadequate budgets, and a lack of funding. The confidence of the public in the judicial system has been further undermined by the opaque system of judge selection and post-retirement benefits.

Prison System

Prisons as well are governed by colonial-era law, i.e., the Prisons Act, 1894, the main purpose of which was to maintain uniformity of processes across the country. The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs has duly noted in its 245th Report on Prison: Condition, Infrastructure, and Reforms (September 21, 2023) that the national average occupancy rate in prisons across India remains 130.2%, with 77.1% of all prisoners in the country being under trial. Section 436-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is an underutilized provision, and the benefit of the provision has not been extended even to eligible prisoners, particularly in the States of UP and Delhi. Spending on prisoner welfare initiatives is declining. Despite the fact that 83.54% of jails nationwide have video conferencing equipment, the report shows that these resources are underutilized; specifically, only 6.68% of interviews in 2022 and 5.6% of interviews in 2023 were conducted via VC until July 17, 2023.

The above structural issues, challenges and hardships further get corroborated by latest NCRB data. NCRB in its latest report “Crime in India – 2022” recorded that though there was a decline of 4.5% in the registration of cases over the second pandemic year, 2021, the overall crime rate — crime rate per lakh population — in India stood at 258.1 per lakh population in 2022 and charge sheeting rate in 2022 was 71.3%. Though NCRB relies upon data provided by the police stations across the country, the underreporting of crime cannot be ignored.

It can be inferred from the above data that inadequate staffing, a dearth of human resources, a lack of accountability, and a conspicuous lack of review of the operations of different stakeholders result in poor investigation, poor prosecution, and an enormous caseload. These factors, in turn, reflect a collective policy failure and have disastrous effects on victims, complainants, and accused who interact with the criminal justice system as well as their families. Also, it is humbly submitted that mere enactment of a new set of laws and overemphasis on the use of emerging innovative technological solutions will not bring any miraculous change in the Indian Criminal Justice System if these underlying challenges are not addressed.

It becomes imperative for the states to recognize and address these deficiencies. A renewed commitment to adequately fund, modernize, and streamline law enforcement agencies, judiciary, and correctional facilities is essential. States must prioritize the recruitment, training, and equipping of police forces, invest in judicial infrastructure, and ensure the proper functioning of prisons. It is time for the states to rise to the occasion, fulfilling their fundamental obligation to create a criminal justice system that is not just a symbol of authority, but a beacon of efficiency, fairness, and swift justice for all citizens.

Authors: Dr. Deepak Sharma is an  Assistant Professor at AIALS, Amity University, Noida and Mr. Vidit, is a Ph.D. Research Scholar at  Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. Views are personal.