Reform in IPC

Recently, the government has initiated the process of amendment to

Criminal laws such as Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure
and the Indian Evidence Act.

 In this pursuit, the Ministry of Home Affairs has sought

suggestions from various stakeholders like Governors,
Chief Ministers, Chief Justice of India, Chief Justices of
various High Courts, etc.
 Earlier, the 111th, 128th & 146th Parliamentary Standing
Committee report had recommended that there is a need for
a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system of the
country.
What is the History of the Criminal Justice System?
 The codification of criminal laws in India was done during
British rule, which more or less remains the same even in
the 21st century.
 Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay is said to be the chief
architect of codifications of criminal laws in India.
 Criminal law in India is governed by Indian Penal Code,
1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, etc.
 Criminal law is considered to be the most apparent
expression of the relationship between a state and its
citizens.
What is the Need for Reforms?
 Colonial Era Laws: The criminal justice system is a replica
of the British colonial jurisprudence, which was designed
with the purpose of ruling the nation and not serving the
citizens.
  Ineffectiveness: The purpose of the criminal justice system
was to protect the rights of the innocents and punish the
guilty, but nowadays the system has become a tool of
harassment of common people.
 Pendency of Cases: According to Economic Survey 2018-
19, there are about 3.5 crore cases pending in the judicial
system, especially in district and subordinate courts, which
leads to actualisation of the maxim “Justice delayed is
justice denied.”
 Huge Undertrials: India has one of the world’s largest
number of undertrial prisoners.
o According to National Crime Records Bureau
(NCRB)-Prison Statistics India (2015), 67.2% of our
total prison population comprises undertrial
prisoners.
 Investigation: Corruption, huge workload and accountability
of police is a major hurdle in speedy and transparent
delivery of justice.
 Madhav Menon Committee: It submitted its report in 2007,
suggesting various recommendations on reforms in
the Criminal Justice System of India (CJSI).
 Malimath Committee Report: It submitted its report in 2003
to the CJSI.
o The Committee had opined that the existing
system “weighed in favour of the accused and did
not adequately focus on justice to the victims of
crime.”
o It has provided various recommendations to be
made in the CJSI, which were not implemented.
What should be the Framework of Reform?
 Victim Protection: The reason for victimisation ought to be
given a major thrust in reforming laws to identify the rights
of crime victims.
o For Example: Launch of victim and witness
protection schemes, use of victim impact
statements, increased victim participation in
criminal trials, enhanced access of victims to
compensation and restitution.
 Construction of New Offences: The construction of new
offences and reworking of the existing classification of
offences must be guided by the principles of criminal
jurisprudence which have substantially altered in the past
four decades.
o For Example: Criminal liability could be graded
better to assign the degree of punishments.
o New types of punishments like community service
orders, restitution orders, and other aspects of
restorative and reformative justice could also be
brought into its fold.
 Streamlining IPC & CrPC: The classification of offences
must be done in a manner conducive to management of
crimes in the future.
o Many chapters of the IPC are overloaded at
several places.
o The chapters on offences against public servants,
contempt of authority, public tranquillity, and
trespass can be redefined and narrowed.
 Curbing Unprincipled Criminalisation: Guiding principles
need to be developed after sufficient debate before
criminalising an act as a crime.
o Unprincipled criminalisation not only leads to the
creation of new offences on unscientific grounds,
 but also arbitrariness in the criminal justice
system.

Reforms in Criminal Justice System

The Criminal Justice System is a system comprising of
various organisations/institutions that are involved in the
procedure of bringing a crime to justice. Majorly there are
three components of the system vis – a – vis Police, Judiciary,
and Prisons which all work in synergy to ensure the proper
delivery of Justice.
In the history of independent India, various reports have been
published/suggested for reforming the justice system. Various
reports of the Law Commission of India and of dedicated
committees formed, have submitted their reports for the
betterment of the ageing and inefficient criminal justice
system. In this article, we’ll explain to you the reports of the
Justice V.S. Malimath Committee and the Madhav Menon
Committee.

Need for Reforms

There are many reasons to overhaul the current criminal
justice system, this is admitted by the Union Government of
India itself. The major reasons are listed below:
 Complex Process: The process is so cumbersome and complex
that it is very difficult for common men to understand it.
Keeping a large section of society unaware of the justice system
 makes way for the misuse of the innocence of the people and
complexity of the system by law practitioners and police.
 Colonial Foundation: The laws have not undergone any major
changes since India gained its independence.
 Delayed Delivery of Justice: Indian judiciary is overburdened
with huge piles of pending cases.
 Status of Undertrials: More than 63% of accused are
undertrials in Indian prisons.
 Corruption: Lack of transparency, at all levels but especially at
lower levels, compromises with the justice delivery.
 No Fixed Accountability: Police officials in India are not
provided with enough freedom to take up the matter and
investigate when the cases are high profile, in such scenarios,
they are required to function at the will of the political class.

V.S. Malimath Committee on Reforms in the Criminal Justice System

Justice V.S. Malimath had been the chief justice of Kerala and
Karnataka high court and was the head of this 6 member
committee which was constituted in the year 2000 and
submitted its reports three years later in the year of 2003. The
Malimath committee made 158 crucial suggestions, but none
of them were accepted and implemented. Below are the most
prominent recommendations made by the Malimath
Committee:
 Police: The committee suggested separating the investigation
wing of the police from its Law & Order Wing. Apart from that it
also recommended:

 Creation of National Security Commission, and State

Security Commissions.

 For maintenance of crime data, appointing additional SP

in each district was suggested.
  Organise Specialised Squads for dealing with organised
crimes.

 Creating a Police Establishment Board for matters related

to postings and transfers, etc.

 For probing inter-State or transnational crimes, a special

team of officers must be constituted.

 Increasing the police custody period from current 15 days

to 30 days and an additional period of 9 days for filing of
charge sheet in cases of serious crimes.

 Investigative Practices: It felt the need of borrowing certain

features of investigative procedures followed in countries such
as Germany, and France. The judicial magistrate should be
responsible to supervise the whole investigation and the courts
should be granted the powers to summon anyone for
examination if required, even if he/she is not listed in the
witness list.
 Right to Silence: The Article 20 (3) of the Indian Constitution
should be amended in such a way as to allow the courts to
infringe on this right of the accused and make him/her provide
information which could go against himself/herself.
 Rights of the Accused: A charter should be launched in all the
languages so as to make the people aware of their rights and
know the steps to make them get enforced and whom to
approach if it doesn’t get enforced in the way it should have
been.
 Innocence Until Proven Guilty: the practice of presuming the
accused to be innocent and unreasonably burdening the
prosecution to prove otherwise should be done away with.
Instead, a fact should be considered as proven if the court is so
convinced subject to its complete evaluation of all the matters
in front of it.
 Rights of the Victims: It made detailed suggestions to provide
justice to the victim, some of them are:

 In all the cases of serious crimes, the victim should be

allowed to take part in.

 If the victim is dead, his/her legal representative should

have the right to take part in the investigation of such a
case.

 In case the victim can’t afford it, he/she should be

provided an option of choosing a lawyer of his/her choice
by the state and the cost involved must also be borne by
the state itself.

 The compensation to the victim in all serious crimes, is

the responsibility and an obligation on part of the state,
irrespective of the fact of whether the accused is
apprehended or not, convicted or acquitted.

 It also suggested creating a victim compensation fund,

which could be funded with the money received after
auctioning the items confiscated in the organised crimes.

 Dying Declarations: it suggested the law to authorise the

audio/video recorded statements, confessions, and dying
declarations.
 Public Prosecution: the creation of a new post of Director of
Prosecution in each state who will ensure effective coordination
between the prosecution wing and the investigation wing of the
police, using the guidance of the Advocate General of that
state. It is also recommended to appoint the public prosecutors
and assistant public prosecutors by means of a competitive
exam instead of departmental promotions. These appointees
shouldn’t be posted in their home districts or where they are
already practising.
 Judges and Courts: The committee suggested increasing the
number of judges in Indian Courts. It also suggested separating
the division of criminal proceedings from the ordinary ones in
High Courts and the Supreme Court, and allotting such cases to
only those judges who have a proven experience and expertise
in criminal laws. It also suggested the creation of a National
Judicial Commission.
 Witness Protection: The witness should be treated with dignity;
be provided with allowance on the same day; be provided with
proper seating and resting facilities. A Witness protection law
must be made on the lines of one that is in the USA.
 Perjury: The witness must be fined and/or imprisoned and be
tried if he/she is found to be providing false information so as
to influence the natural course of the case.
 Court Vacations: Considering the number of pending cases
before the court, the committee suggested reducing the
vacation period of the courts by 21 days.
 Arrears Eradication Scheme: Under this scheme, the cases
which are pending for more than 2 years are to be settled by
the Lok Adalats on priority. Such cases will be heard daily and
no adjournment is allowed.
 Verdicts: 

 Creation of permanent statutory permanent committee

for suggesting sentencing guidelines.

 House arrest instead of prison sentence for pregnant

ladies and women who have a child less than the age of 7
years, considering the child’s future and wellbeing.

 Settlement without any trial in cases where the interest of

the society is absent. In case he/she cannot afford to pay a
fine, some form of community service could be arranged
for the convict.
  Life imprisonment to replace a death sentence without
the scope for commutation or remission.

 Update Indian Penal Code (IPC) for adding or removing

crimes as per the changing times.

 Reclassify Offences: instead of the current system of

categorising into cognisable and non-cognisable offences, the
committee recommended below 5 categories:

 Economic Code

 Criminal Code

 Correctional Code

 Social Welfare Code

 Other Offences Code

 Periodic Review: The criminal justice system of India should be

reviewed periodically by a committee constituted by the
President of India.

Madhav Menon Committee on Reforms in the Criminal

Justice System
N.R. Madhav Menon was the head of the 4 member
committee entrusted to draft the “Draft National Policy on
Criminal Justice”. The committee submitted its report in the
year of 2007, advocating a complete overhaul of the whole
criminal justice system of India. The draft contained some
provisions that are recommended by the V.S. Malimath
Committee as well in 2003, like re-categorisation of offences
within IPC; creation of National Security Commission, and
matters related to rights of the victims among others.
The re-classification of offences as per this report should be
on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Social Welfare Offences Code: Punishment should not be the
focus here, rather reparation and/or restitution be.
2. Correctional Offences Code: Involving crimes that have the
provision of imprisonment of up to 3 years and/or fines.
3. Grave Offences Code: Involving crimes that have the provision
of imprisonment of beyond 3 years and/or death.
4. Economic Offences Code: For crimes that are related to
economic security and other financial laws.
All the above 4 categories will contain the detailed nature of
trial, rules of procedure, and types of punishments.
The committee also suggested for the creation of a victim
compensation fund for those who turned out hostile due to the
pressure from the culprits.

SC Judgement on Police Reforms

The Supreme Court of India in the year 2006, in the Prakash
Singh v/s the Union of India case, gave 7 directives to all the
States and Union Territories for carrying out police reforms.
The major aim of the directives was to free the police system
from the unwarranted interference and pressure from the
political rulers and do their duty with full self-accountability.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by a retired
DGP (Director General of Police) having served in UP Police
and Assam Police in the year 1996 seeking police reforms. 
The case took a decade to conclude into what is considered as
to be one of the most important judgments ever given by the
Supreme Court after the Kesavananda Bharati case of 1973.
Following were the 7 Directives for Police Reforms
propounded by the Supreme Court in 2006:
1. Create a State Security Commission (SSC) for ensuring no
unwarranted pressure or interference is exercised on the police
by the respective state government. The SSC will also be
responsible for evaluation of the performance of the state
police and to institute broad policy guidelines.
2. The DGP must have a minimum tenure of 2 years and should
be appointed via a transparent merit based process.
3. Superintendents of Police (SP) of a district, the Station House
Officers (SHOs) of each police station and other police officials
on operational duty must also have a minimum 2 years of
tenure.
4. Hive off the prosecution, investigation, law and order, and other
functions of the police.
5. Setup Police Establishment Board (PEB) for:

 Giving decisions on the matters related to police officials

below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP),
such as transfers, postings, promotions among other
service-related matters.

 For police officers above the rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Police (DSP), recommend upon the
matters such as postings, and transfers.

6. Create Police Complaints Authority (PCA) at:

 State Level: To enquire into and deal with public

complaints against officers above the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DSP) including the DSP itself, in
matters of serious misconduct such as rape in police
custody, grievous hurt, custodial death, etc.
  District level: With the same provisions and powers as
above but for the police personnel who are below the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) rank.

7. For the purpose of selection and placement of Chiefs of CPOs

(Central Police Organisations) with a minimum tenure of 2
years, create a National Security Commission (NSC) for
constituting a panel for the said purpose.

Implementation Status of SC Directives

As per a study report published by the Commonwealth
Human Rights Initiative (CHRI), not even a single State
/Union Territory in India has completely adhered to the above
directives. Some have implemented a few among those in a
manner so as to make the implementation useless and just for
the namesake. It found that 18 states have passed the
amendments to their respective Police Acts in pursuance of
these directives. By and large, the Police is still under the
control and influence of the State Governments and this
hampers the overall criminal justice system as the officials
feel hesitant to even file the cases, let alone investigate it
honestly and ensure the delivery of justice.
It is important to understand that it is the action of the police
which marks the beginning of the long process of justice
delivery, an inaction on its part or an action under the undue
influence of State Governments simply means denial of
justice. The judges of already overburdened courts have
limited capacity to take suo moto cases and oversee the
investigations done by the police.

Recent Developments
 Union Home Minister Mr. Amit Shah has sought suggestions to
make the criminal laws of India more people-centric. The
 suggestions have been primarily sought by the Chief Justice of
India (CJI), Chief Ministers (CMs), and Members of Parliament
(MPs) among others.
 In his statement, Mr. Amit Shah hinted that the days of third
degree tortures will soon be over.
 The government is keen to make changes in the Indian Penal
Code (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the
Indian Evidence Act.
 At a recent meeting of the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) core group, experts have expressed their
serious concerns on the sluggish speed of reforms being made
in the Criminal Justice System of India.