REVISITING REFORMS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN INDIA

Revisiting Reforms in the Criminal Justice System in India highlights various areas of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in India requiring imminent reform. It employs doctrinal, empirical, and philosophical methods to identify the lacunae inhibiting the effective functioning of the CJS and proposes solutions to meaningfully address them. 

This book intends to assist policymakers, legal thinkers, academics, and practitioners in comprehensively understanding the workings of the system from a reformative lens to ultimately realize the goals of the CJS. It will be equally beneficial to law students and researchers who intend to understand criminal law as it ‘ought to be’ and not just ‘as it is’. 

The book emphasizes that the study of criminal law is not merely the theoretical application of legal rules but, more importantly, an examination of the impact of such laws at the ground level. Various contemporary issues discussed in this book will equally aid judges and lawyers in their pursuit of legal research. The collaborative efforts of academia, researchers, lawyers, and civil society in bringing out this work, marked by intellectual acumen and practical experience, will make for a valuable resource and set new standards in the field of research of the CJS.

The book concentrates on the concern of the Legislatures. Judiciary and civil society, wherein every one eager for long-awaited requisite reforms for the criminal justice system. We can also observe various judgments laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as various high courts with regard to the reforms required in the criminal justice system. One of the major concerns in public at large is the mechanism of speedy trial. The Apex Court in various judgments laid down that right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right, but the same has been implemented in very few cases.

SPEEDY TRIAL UNDER ARTICLE 21

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar,1979 AIR 1369, 1979 has laid down that speedy trial is, as held by us in our earlier judgment dated 26th February 1979, an essential ingredient of 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure guaranteed by Article 21 and it is the constitutional obligation of the State to device such a procedure as would ensure speedy trial to the accused. The State cannot be permitted to deny the constitutional right of speedy trial to the accused on the ground that the State has no adequate financial resources to incur the necessary expenditure needed for improving the administrative and judicial apparatus with a view to ensuring speedy trial.

The Hon’ble Court further held that State cannot avoid its constitutional obligation to provide speedy trial to the accused by pleading financial or administrative inability. The State is under a constitutional mandate to ensure speedy trial and whatever is necessary for this purpose has to be done by the State. It is also the constitutional obligation of this Court as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the people, as a sentinel on the qui vive, to enforce the fundamental right of the accused to speedy trial by issuing the necessary directions to the State which may include taking of positive action, such as augmenting and strengthening the investigative machinery, setting up new courts, building new court houses, providing more staff and equipment to the courts, appointment of additional judges and other measures calculated to ensure speedy trial. We find that in fact the courts in the United States have adopted this dynamic and consructive role so far as the prison reform is concerned by utilising the activist magnitude of the Eighth Amendment.

The Apex Court held that the  powers of this Court in protection of the Constitutional rights are of the widest amplitude and we do not see why this Court should not adopt a similar activist approach and issue to the State directions which may involve taking of positive action with a view to securing enforcement of the fundamental right to speedy trial. But in order to enable the Court to discharge this constitutional obligation, it is necessary that the Court should have the requisite information bearing on the problem. 

TRIAL- PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr 1988 AIR 1531  has laid down that every accused has right under Article 21 of the Constitution-a right to trial by a Special Judge under section 7(1) of the 1952 Act which is the procedure established by law made by the Parliament, and a further right to move the High Court by way of, revision or first appeal under section 9 of the said Act. He has also a right not to suffer any order passed behind his back by a Court in violation of the basic principles of natural justice. The Court further observed that Directions having been given in this case as we have seen without hearing the appellant though it appears from the circumstances that the order was passed in the presence of the counsel for the appellant, these were bad.

The Apex Court in this matter has relied on its own judgement  Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. The State of Gujarat, [1974] 3 S.C.R. 427, wherein the court held that an order passed without hearing a party which affects his fundamental rights, is void and as soon as the order is declared void by a Court, the decision operates from its nativity. It is proper for this Court to act ex debito justitiae, to act in favour of the fundamental rights of the accused.

CONCLUSION:

Therefore, as per issue laid down in the aforesaid book, it can be concluded that long awaited reforms required in criminal justice system shall be implemented and the same is need of an hour . To attain the ambition of speedy justice, such reforms are required to be implemented. Furthermore, the speedy trial which has also been held as the fundamental rights under article 21, needs proper mechanism to attain the ambition of speedy justice and the same is the most important ingredient of reforms which is required in criminal justice system.