Author: Kritika Prakash, a student at Government Law College, Mumbai
Criminal justice reforms are a system of justice that allows a criminal to get a chance to speak their side of the story. It protects the citizens from being falsely accused. This includes police enforcement, prosecution, and defense attorneys, the courts of law, and the prison system. There are many laws in India that protect such rights such as the Article 22 of the Constitution of India, which states that a person who has been arrested has the right to know why they were arrested and have the right to get an advocate. It also states that the person who has been arrested should be produced in front of a magistrate within 24 hours. Adding to Article 22 in assisting with criminal justice reform, Article 39A of the Constitution of India states that it’s the duty of the state to provide a chance of defense by providing a lawyer for such accused who can’t afford one.
Clearly, the country has tried its best legally to keep the flags of criminal justice high. But are reforms concerning criminal justice only legal? Of course, any law that changes the legal system has to go through the procedures of the legislature which makes it political in a way. But, the picture is not so narrow when it comes to criminal justice.
The political parties partaking in the decisions of making policies related to criminal justice tend to constantly manipulate such policies according to their personal political agendas. Whether it is the ruling government or the opposition, there’s constant attention regarding their selfish goals. Even after policies are enacted, police enforcement is politically pressurized to give bail to criminals even for non-bailable offenses and even give priority to some specific cases. There are cases where the victims are politically pressurized to not speak or withdraw the cases and some cases where the criminals are staged in order to save a bigger political figure from the consequences of their actions. The biggest evidence of such influence is the landmark judgment case of Prakash Singh v. Union of India, in which a retired Indian Police Service Officer himself filed a writ petition against the political pressurization that is so prominent in criminal justice institutions in order to lessen and eventually cease any sort of political influence in the field of criminal justice. The judgment in the case was that some measures were put forth and implemented to lessen the political influence on these institutions while acknowledging that such misuse does take place. Criminal justice reforms are not away from the clutches of electoral politics either. In this year’s general elections, we saw Congress’s manifesto named ‘Nyay Patra’ which suggested decriminalizing defamation and making all offenses subject to bail. By making such promises, political parties are putting the whole criminal justice system under the bus. Allowing bail on all offenses may be important to make sure that under trial accused individuals do not have to go through the turmoil of being a convict, but this also endangers the society from potential criminals and risks losing such criminals. It is not a matter of joke but a decision that has to be informed from every aspect. Decisions, such that of decriminalizing defamation, are not acts of charity either. It clearly depicts that political parties want to turn their black money into white money and openly spread rumours too, executing an act of killing two birds with one stone. The Political manipulation is not just so indirect when it comes to justice in any form. Political figures control judicial appointments and may influence their transfers but most importantly, they also threaten the presiding judges regarding cases that may pose a threat to the politicians’ image and reputation. Unfortunately, this has been the case for years. During an emergency, a Habeas Corpus case named the ADM Jabalpur case, the Supreme Court had held that enforcement of fundamental rights remains suspended, and thus, we cannot seek justice for the same. This decision was getting a lot of backlash and subsequent to the ruling, P.N Bhagwati was appointed as the Chief Justice of India, replacing Justice H. R Khanna who had advocated in favour of upholding the Fundamental rights of individuals in the nation. Following this, the landmark judgment of the case of Kesavananda Bharti v. Union of India was held which emphasized the doctrine of basic structure leading to another change in the Chief Justice of India to A.N. Ray which was widely seen as an attempt to control the judiciary that works at the will of the ruling government. The pattern of such instances is very visible and there is no denying that such politics hamper the justice system. If a judge cannot be influenced then public prosecutors are made victim of dirty political games either by threats or in a more sad state of affairs, the public prosecutor falls for the corruption himself. Political figures easily threaten the witnesses too thus, manipulating evidence and this leads to more and more delay in the case, risking so many lives. This, basically, is like fixing a match except that here human lives are put at stake. Following the game of deception in the court of law itself, the politicians start to manipulate external factors such as the media. Rumours and manipulated facts are put forth in public pressurizing the trial more and more, and paving the way for a biased judgment. Especially, in India, such coverage can scare the victim massively and they may get manipulated into going for court settlements to evade defamation of that sort. Political corruption affects justice reforms massively and the citizens lose trust in the system. This may lessen cooperation from the side of the public and allow them to question the laws themselves, ruining the constitutional integrity of the nation, to the point they may refuse the constitution itself. This may create a chain of mishappenings and cause instability in the country. In the infamous murder case of Jessica Lal, Manu Sharma, who was the son of a member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha, shot Jessica Lal dead on the spot because she refused to serve him alcohol as the bar had closed. There were multiple witnesses of the crime, but not a single witness came forward. Evidences were erased, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to ‘lack of evidences’. The saddest bit of it all is that after the Delhi high court held him guilty and gave him the sentence of life imprisonment, he was provided parole throughout his term for multiple times. He was, then, released within 17 years for good behavior. Not just this but, in the murder case of Nitish Katara, Vikas Yadav, who was the convict in Nitish’s case, was on bail from the Jessica Lal Murder case when he committed the crime.
I get goosebumps when I read such cases filled with political filth and feel shameful to be a part of such a system. I cannot possibly imagine the lives of those people who suffer injustice directly at the hands of the powerful. How many strangled souls there must be? Cases like these show the grave consequences of how political influential figures oppress normal people and make us question if the nation seriously is ‘by the people, for the people, of the people’ or if the reality is that a certain group rules the country in every aspect reminding us of our helplessness in the system. Even if there is no such political influence in an ideal situation, there is no denying the fact that any political committee making decisions on it will be biased in one way or the other. It is important that these decisions are taken in the most protected and impartial manner, making sure that no selfish interests are entertained. Although, this seems impossible in a nation where everything works according to the political agendas, votes, and power play but, if there is any reform that is needed in the field of criminal justice, then it is to eradicate the filthy politics itself. If we stand together as a nation, then nothing can overturn what the masses want. Let’s make ‘by the people, of the people, for the people’ a reality!
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
What is the doctrine of basic structure?
The basic structure doctrine holds that certain fundamental features of the Constitution, such as the supremacy of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary, cannot be amended or abrogated by the Parliament through a constitutional amendment.
What was the Nitish Katara Murder case?
Nitish Katara was an Indian business executive in Delhi who was murdered on 17 February 2002 by Vikas Yadav. Yadav was the son of influential politician D.P. Yadav. Vikas’s sister was in a relationship with Nitish. The trial court held that Katara’s murder was an act of honour killing because the family did not approve of their relationship.
