Criminal Justice System of India

Malimath Committee Report on Criminal Justice System Reforms in India, published in 2003, is being reexamined by the Government of India. It explores the country’s criminal justice system, the Malimath Committee’s recommendations, and the need for reform in this climate.

Determining What Constitutes a Crime

• The Criminal Justice System comprises government-established organisations and procedures for combatting criminal activity within a country’s borders. The police and the legal system are considered in this process.

• The Criminal Justice System (CJS) is a safety net for defending the liberties and rights of the public.

• Criminal legislation in India includes the Indian Penal Code of 1860 and other laws, such as the Protecting Civil Rights Act of 1955 and the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961.

• The Criminal Justice System (CJS) can punish people who breach the law.

• Criminal law and criminal procedure are included in the Constitution’s seventh schedule.

What Do We Know About The Indian Criminal Justice System?

•  The British brought the Penal Code to India during their colonial reign, at the heart of India’s criminal justice system.

• No substantial change has been made to the system in our 70 years of self-government.

• Perhaps the most egregious example is found in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) Section 124A, which explains the concept of sedition and the associated punishments in India.

The Code of Criminal Procedure: Significant Change in 1973. (Cr. P.C):

• Establishing the Vohra Committee was the first step toward reforming India’s criminal justice system. The report of the Vohra Committee identified the connection between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats in India (1993).

• Former Chief Justice of Kerala and Karnataka Court V.S. Malimath headed a Government of India appointed council in 2000 to propose reforms in the century-old criminal justice system.

• In its 2003 report, the Malimath Committee made 158 recommendations, but none were implemented.

• They determined that current law was biased in favour of criminals and that the system did not adequately serve justice for victims.

• There are several reasons for reforming India’s criminal justice system.

Why Was the Criminal Justice System Established in India?

Only about 16% of criminals in India are sentenced to a prison term. As a whole, the judiciary in India has fewer cases that are brought to trial because of this. Only 16% of people arrested charged with a crime in India are convicted. The Indian criminal justice system, including the police, prosecutors, and courts, is ineffective because of a low conviction rate.  

As a result of a century-old outdated legal system, Government of India entities are harassing residents and putting unnecessary demands on courts. The state established the CJS to protect the rights of the innocent and punish those proven guilty.

Criminals are no longer deterred by the prolonged time it takes for justice to be delivered because of the inefficiency of the legal system. Justice, prosecution, and the police aren’t working together as well as they need to. If you’re guilty, you’re often spared any punishment at all. There are still many innocent persons being imprisoned in undertrial jails, on the other hand. Jail populations comprised 67.2% of people awaiting trial, according to the National Crime Information Centre (NCIC).

Crimes were probed haphazardly due to the lack of investigation ability, which prolonged the time needed to administer swift justice.

• Unequal Justice: 

• Even the most heinous crimes are rarely punished by the wealthy and powerful. In recent years, crime and politics have become increasingly linked.

• The public’s faith in the judicial system has eroded as the process has become more time-consuming and expensive. Mob violence has been on the rise recently, according to reports.

Major Objectives of Criminal Justice System: 

• The primary goal of the criminal justice system is to prevent crime from occurring.

• To bring transgressors and offenders to justice.

• Transgressors should be rehabilitated.

• Victims should be compensated.

• Law and order must be maintained.

Recommendation of the Malimath Committee

• Borrowing from the inquisitorial system: Taking a page from the inquisitorial system, the committee proposed that courts be given the authority to summon anyone, whether or not they are designated as a witness, for questioning.

• Right to silence: The Committee recommended that the court be granted the authority to examine the accused to get information and draw an adverse inference against him if he refuses to answer.

• Rights of the accused: The code should be published in all regional languages so that the accused is aware of their rights.

• Presumption of innocence: The presumption of innocence is a legal concept that states that a person is presumed. In criminal matters, the courts utilise the standard of “evidence beyond a reasonable doubt” to convict an accused. The committee believed this places a “quite unreasonable burden” on the prosecution and advised that a fact be considered proven “if the court is convinced that it is true” after examining all the matters before it. 

• Justice to victims of crime: The State should provide an advocate for the victim’s choice to plead on their behalf, and the State must bear the cost if the victim can’t afford it. Victim compensation is a State obligation in all serious crimes, and a victim Compensation Fund can be created.

• Police investigation: Giving off the investigation wing from Law and Order. Setting up of a National Security Commission and State Security Commissions. Setting up a Police Establishment Board to deal with posting, transfers, and so on.

• Courts and judges: As of 2017, there were 19.66 judges per million inhabitants, compared to 50 judges per million people in many other parts of the world.

• A separate criminal division should be established in the higher courts, including the Supreme Court, composed of judges specialising in criminal law.

• Witness protection: It has also recommended a permanent statutory commission to establish sentencing criteria and revisions for offences against women and a humanitarian element to the reforms. It also asks for a review of the entire criminal justice system regularly.

Justice in India’s Criminal Courts

They should be revisited to assess if the committee’s recommendations can be adopted. Although reforms should be cautiously undertaken, they should only be implemented following a full discussion. Issues such as recognising high-ranking police officers’ confessions as evidence and lowering the bar of proof must be thoroughly discussed. By the Supreme Court’s directive, the prosecution and police should follow to ensure that victims’ rights are maintained, and criminals are held accountable.

Conclusion 

A reorganised CJS should not jeopardise the core values of our justice system. The regulations and procedures must be simplified to make life easier for the common individual. Priority must be given to improving the police force, increasing the number of judges, advancing scientific research, and building forensic labs and other critical infrastructure.