Uttar Pradesh State Institute of Forensic Sciences
School Of Legal Studies
ASSIGNMENT ON TOPIC
“Reforms in India's Criminal Justice System - Reports &
Recommendations Post Independence ”
SUBJECT: - Research Methods and Legal Writings
COURSE: - LL.M.
Submitted to: - Miss. Adya Antya
Submitted by:- Pratyush Tripathi
Roll no.: - 202404015
Reforms in India's Criminal Justice System - Reports &
Recommendations Post Independence
By Pratyush Tripathi
The Criminal Justice System in India is a complex network of various institutions and
organisations that work together to bring justice to crimes committed. This system is primarily
made up of three components – the Police, the Judiciary, and Prisons. These entities work in
harmony to ensure the proper delivery of justice.
Since India gained independence, numerous reports have been published with suggestions for
reforming the justice system. These include reports from the Law Commission of India and other
dedicated committees formed for the purpose. In this article, we will delve into the
recommendations made by the Justice V.S. Malimath Committee and the Madhav Menon
Committee, both of which were aimed at improving the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
Why Are Reforms Needed?
There are several reasons why the existing criminal justice system in India needs an overhaul,
some of which are even acknowledged by the Union Government of India. Here are the major
reasons:
o Complex Process: The current system is so intricate and difficult for the average citizen
to comprehend. This lack of understanding often paves the way for misuse by law
practitioners and police.
o Colonial Foundation: The laws in place have not undergone significant changes since
India's independence.
o Delayed Justice: The Indian judiciary is burdened with a backlog of pending cases.
o Status of Undertrials: Over 63% of accused individuals in Indian prisons are undertrials.
o Corruption: The lack of transparency at all levels, particularly at lower levels, often
compromises the delivery of justice.
o No Fixed Accountability: Police officials in India often lack the freedom to investigate
high-profile cases independently, as they are typically required to function under the
influence of the political class.
V.S. Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms
Justice V.S. Malimath, former Chief Justice of Kerala and Karnataka High Court, headed this
six-member committee. The committee was formed in 2000 and submitted its report in 2003.
The Malimath Committee proposed 158 crucial suggestions, but none of them were accepted
or implemented. Here are some of the most significant recommendations made by the
committee:
o Police: The committee proposed separating the investigation wing of the police from its
Law & Order Wing. It also recommended the creation of a National Security Commission,
State Security Commissions, Specialised Squads for dealing with organised crimes, and a
Police Establishment Board for matters related to postings and transfers. Additionally, the
committee suggested increasing the police custody period from 15 days to 30 days and
allowing an additional 9 days for filing of charge sheet in cases of serious crimes.
o Investigative Practices: The committee suggested adopting certain features of
investigative procedures from countries like Germany and France. The judicial magistrate
should supervise the entire investigation, and the courts should have the power to summon
anyone for examination if required.
o Right to Silence: The committee proposed amending Article 20 (3) of the Indian
Constitution to allow courts to infringe on the accused's right to silence and compel them
to provide self-incriminating information.
o Rights of the Accused: The committee recommended launching a charter in all languages
to educate people about their rights and the mechanisms to enforce them.
o Presumption of Innocence: The committee suggested abandoning the practice of
presuming the accused to be innocent until proven guilty. Instead, a fact should be
considered proven if the court is convinced of its truth after evaluating all the evidence
presented.
o Rights of the Victims: The committee made detailed suggestions to provide justice to the
victims, including allowing victims to participate in serious crime cases, providing state-
funded legal representation if the victim cannot afford it, and creating a victim
compensation fund.
o Dying Declarations: The committee recommended that the law should allow audio/video
recorded statements, confessions, and dying declarations.
o Public Prosecution: The committee suggested creating a new post of Director of
Prosecution in each state to ensure effective coordination between the prosecution and
investigation wings of the police. It also recommended appointing public prosecutors and
assistant public prosecutors through competitive exams instead of departmental
promotions.
o Judges and Courts: The committee proposed increasing the number of judges in Indian
Courts, separating criminal proceedings from ordinary ones in High Courts and the
Supreme Court, and creating a National Judicial Commission.
o Witness Protection: The committee recommended treating witnesses with dignity,
providing them with allowances on the same day, providing proper seating and resting
facilities, and enacting a Witness Protection law similar to the one in the USA.
o Perjury: The committee suggested that witnesses who provide false information to
influence the course of the case should be fined and/or imprisoned and tried.
o Court Vacations: Given the number of pending cases, the committee recommended
reducing the vacation period of the courts by 21 days.
o Arrears Eradication Scheme: Under this scheme, the committee suggested that cases
pending for more than 2 years should be settled by Lok Adalats on a priority basis. These
cases should be heard daily without any adjournments.
o Verdicts: The committee proposed creating a permanent statutory committee for
suggesting sentencing guidelines, replacing death sentences with life imprisonment
without the possibility of commutation or remission, and updating the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) to add or remove crimes as per changing times.
o Reclassify Offences: The committee recommended reclassifying offences into five
categories: Economic Code, Criminal Code, Correctional Code, Social Welfare Code, and
Other Offences Code.
o Periodic Review: The committee suggested that the President of India should periodically
review the criminal justice system of India.
Madhav Menon Committee on Criminal Justice System Reforms
N.R. Madhav Menon headed a four-member committee tasked with drafting the "Draft
National Policy on Criminal Justice". The committee submitted its report in 2007, advocating
a complete overhaul of India's criminal justice system. The draft included some provisions
recommended by the V.S. Malimath Committee in 2003, such as re-categorisation of offences
within IPC, the creation of a National Security Commission, and issues related to the rights of
victims.
According to this report, offences should be reclassified based on the following criteria:
1. Social Welfare Offences Code: The focus here should be on reparation and/or restitution
rather than punishment.
2. Correctional Offences Code: This category would include crimes that carry a sentence of
up to three years in prison and/or fines.
3. Grave Offences Code: This category would include crimes that carry a sentence of more
than three years in prison and/or death.
4. Economic Offences Code: This category would include crimes related to economic
security and other financial laws.
Each of these four categories would detail the nature of the trial, the rules of procedure, and
the types of punishments.
The committee also suggested creating a victim compensation fund for those who turned
hostile due to pressure from the culprits.
Supreme Court Judgement on Police Reforms
In 2006, in the case of Prakash Singh vs the Union of India, the Supreme Court of India issued
seven directives to all States and Union Territories for implementing police reforms. The main
goal of these directives was to liberate the police system from undue political influence and
instil a sense of self-accountability. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a retired
Director General of Police who had served in the UP Police and Assam Police in 1996, seeking
police reforms.
The case lasted a decade and resulted in what is considered one of the most significant
judgments ever given by the Supreme Court, following the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.
Here are the seven directives for Police Reforms issued by the Supreme Court in 2006:
1. Create a State Security Commission (SSC) to ensure that the state government does not
exert unwarranted pressure or interference on the police. The SSC will also evaluate the
performance of the state police and establish broad policy guidelines.
2. The Director General of Police (DGP) should have a minimum tenure of two years and
should be appointed through a merit-based and transparent process.
3. Police officers on operational duty, including the Superintendents of Police (SP) of a
district and the Station House Officers (SHOs) of each police station, should also have
a minimum tenure of two years.
4. Separate the functions of prosecution, investigation, law and order, and other functions of
the police.
5. Set up a Police Establishment Board (PEB) to decide on matters related to police officers
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), such as transfers, postings,
promotions, and other service-related matters.
6. Create a Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at the state and district levels to investigate
and deal with public complaints against police officers in cases of serious misconduct.
7. Create a National Security Commission (NSC) to select and place Chiefs of Central
Police Organisations (CPOs) with a minimum tenure of two years.
Status of Implementation of Supreme Court Directives
According to a study report by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), not a
single State or Union Territory in India has fully complied with these directives. Some have
implemented a few in such a way that the implementation is merely nominal. The study found
that 18 states have amended their respective Police Acts in response to these directives.
However, the police are still largely under the control and influence of state governments,
which hampers the overall criminal justice system.
It's important to note that the action or inaction of the police marks the beginning of the lengthy
process of justice delivery. If the police are hesitant to even file cases, let alone investigate
them honestly, justice is denied. The judges of already overburdened courts have a limited
capacity to take suo moto cases and oversee police investigations.
New Criminal Laws 2023 :
Introduction Since the inception of the Indian Constitution, which pledged justice social,
economic, and political for all, we have seen continuous efforts, spanning 75 years, through
various legislations and amendments to address contemporary issues. Now, the Parliament
recognizes the necessity for Indianizing the criminal justice system while preserving its
fundamental provisions that serve the cause of justice. Many provisions have been retained
due to their alignment with our constitutional framework and their efficacy in serving the larger
objective of justice. The introduction of new criminal laws is a much needed paradigm shift
for an Independent India as even after the 76 years of Independence, an obsolete criminal law
of the British era was being practiced in Indian courts. The new regime introduces the
reformative approach through legislative enactments. Continuing the status quo is an easy
option, but changing the status quo requires courage and conviction. In the history of any
nation, comes a time when you have to shift from old to new, before Independence, we were
governed by the laws which were meant to rule us and not to give us the rule of law, we
inherited that law and series of other laws in 1947, when the country was craving and
demanding that now there would be a Indianised version. The effective decision maker Hon’ble
Prime Minister, Home Minister and the will of the people has led to this change. These reforms
represent a profound jurisprudential shift, reflecting the aspirations of a modern, democratic
India and adhering to the constitutional mandate of ensuring justice, equality, and the rule of
law. 2 Why New Criminal laws? The old criminal laws of the country and more specifically,
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were often touted as being
shrouded with a strong colonial color and pre-independence mindset which was reflected from
the bare reading of certain provisions. After much debate and criticism and to do away with
the colonial mindset from the British era, the three new criminal laws viz., the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita (‘BNS’), Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’) and Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam (‘BSA’) replaced the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 respectively on 1 July 2024. The older regime was
conceptualized and implemented during the colonial era. While several amendments occurred
post independence, the colonial era laws were proving to be cumbersome for effective and
quick judicial dispensation. The multilayer laws now find alignment to the present societal
realities and work towards a uniform enforcement. These reforms aim to create a more efficient
and equitable legal system. Under the new regime additional offences has been included like
mob lynching, terrorist act, snatching, organized crime and sexual intercourse by deceitful
means. Overall, the new laws bring in some positive changes particularly from a procedural
point of view by introducing timelines and formalizing the use of technology in certain
investigative and judicial processes. In the BNS which replaces the IPC, offences which are
similar in nature have been consolidated thereby streamlining the statute, and a few new
offenses such as organized crime, mob lynching and terrorist acts have been introduced. 3
Major overhaul in the law a)Key changes in the penal provisions The transition from ‘Dand’
to ‘Nyaya’, BNS does not entail sweeping changes in law from the former Code, that was
predominantly concerned with deterrence of crime. The present Sanhita restrains this
deterrence aspect but introduces provisions which focus on providing justice to all
stakeholders. Out of a plethora of changes ushered-in by the new laws, a few key changes
pertain to sentencing reforms wherein under the new laws, there are provisions for fixed
punishments as well as restorative justice provisions like imposition of community service or
rehabilitation. In terms of defining the penal provisions and their respective punishments, the
BNS encapsulates more specific definitions in terms of defining offenses and avoiding
ambiguity. The new penal code i.e. BNS now recognizes organized crime such as kidnapping,
extortion, contract killings etc. as a member of a criminal syndicate which punishes such
offenses and has been the need of the hour. To secure fundamental right of the citizens to
express their views freely and their personal liberty the offence of sedition has been omitted.
To secure the best interests of national security, the BNS has introduced a specific provision
which penalizes terrorist acts which are intending to or likely to threaten India’s unity, integrity,
security, sovereignty or have economic implications covering both, violence and non-violence
acts which may be in the nature of financial implications. The BNS has also recognizes the
offense of disseminating false information whether through spoken words, signs,
representations or electronic means. It reclassifies offences to encompass cybercrimes,
financial frauds, and gender-based violence, demonstrating a proactive approach to
contemporary 4 challenges. The BNS introduces a nuanced approach to sentencing, ensuring
penalties are proportional to the gravity of the offence, with alternative sentencing options such
as community service and rehabilitation programs. This proportionality in sentencing reflects
the constitutional principle of fairness and justice. By decriminalizing minor offences, the BNS
aims to reduce the burden on the criminal justice system, enabling it to focus on serious crimes.
Emphasizing correctional measures, the BNS promotes rehabilitation and reintegration of
offenders into society, marking a shift towards a more humane and rehabilitative justice
system, as envisioned by the constitutional ideals of reformative justice. b) Key changes in the
procedural provisions BNSS in terms of constitutional mandate The BNSS is meticulously
designed to simplify and expedite criminal procedures, thereby aligning with Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to a speedy trial. The key features of the BNSS
include streamlining the process of filing First Information Reports (FIRs) to enhance
accessibility and reduce bureaucratic red tape. By prioritizing the use of digital records, online
filing, and virtual hearings, the BNSS aims to mitigate delays and enhance transparency,
thereby upholding the constitutional value of efficiency in the administration of justice.
Additionally, the BNSS enhances protection for victims, ensuring timely compensation and
support services, and promoting a victim-centric approach.
Recently enacted three new criminal laws: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) are set to take
effect from 1st July 2024, replacing the colonial-era Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal
Procedure (CrPC) and Indian Evidence Act.
What are the Key Highlights of the New Criminal Laws?
Objective: The new laws aim to replace colonial-era punishments with a justice-focused
approach, integrating technological advancements in police investigations and court
procedures.
New Offences: New offences include terrorism, mob lynching, organized crime, and enhanced
punishments for crimes against women and children.
Steps for Smooth Transition:
States are free to bring in their own amendments to some provisions of the Bharatiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) may also be amended soon to incorporate a section on
sexual crimes against men and transgender persons.
For the time being police officers are being asked to invoke other allied sections under the
BNS, such as wrongful confinement and physical hurt, if they get such complaints until an
amendment is brought to correct this anomaly.
The IPC and CrPC will run concurrently along with the new laws as several cases are still
pending in courts and some crimes that took place before 1st July 2024 that are reported later
will have to be registered under the IPC.
First information reports (FIRs) can now be filed online through the Crime and Criminal
Tracking Network Systems (CCTNS), allowing e-FIRs and zero FIRs in multiple languages
without needing to visit a police station.
Training and hand-holding have been done for all States to help them adapt to the new system.
While the Home Ministry is testing eSakshya, a mobile app for police to record and upload
crime scene evidence, various states have developed their own systems based on their
capabilities.
For example, the Delhi Police have developed an e-pramaan application.
Key Points :
Introduces community service as punishment for petty offences.
A terrorist act defined as one intending or likely to threaten India's unity, integrity, sovereignty,
security, or economic security, or acts intended or likely to strike terror among the people.
Mob lynching now punishable by death or life imprisonment if committed by five or more on
grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief.
There will be trial in absentia of fugitive criminals.
Summary trials now cover cases where the punishment is up to 3 years, aiming to resolve more
than 40% of cases in sessions courts.m
Videography compulsory during search and seizure. No charge sheet valid without such
recording.
A first-time offender who has served a third of the jail term will be released on bail by the
court.
Forensic experts should be used in every case where the punishment includes seven or more
years in jail.
Conclusion
These reforms are poised to address longstanding issues such as procedural delays, inadequate
protections for victims and witnesses, and the need for more approaches to sentencing and
rehabilitation. By integrating digital technologies, enhancing victim rights, and adapting to
contemporary forms of criminality such as cybercrime, the new laws signal a commitment to not
just catching up with global legal standards but also leading in innovative practices that uphold the
rule of law. Furthermore, the emphasis on rehabilitation and alternative sentencing under the BNS
underscores a shift towards a more humane approach to justice, acknowledging that punitive
measures alone may not suffice in addressing the complex social factors contributing to criminal
behaviour. This holistic 12 approach, coupled with strengthened safeguards for digital evidence
and witness protection under the BSA, ensures that trials are fair, evidence is reliable, and
witnesses are safeguarded against intimidation.
