Yes, Prime Minister. Shame!

There is a reason why such horrific incidents as in Manipur keep occurring: The criminal justice system in India is broken

After the video of the naked parading of two Kuki women went viral and the whole nation had felt horrified and criticised what was happening in Manipur, Prime Minister Narendra Modi too finally found his voice, “The incident in Manipur has put 140 crore Indians to shame…“I want to assure the people of India that the guilty will not be spared,” he said ahead of the monsoon session of parliament. When parliament met, members across party lines expressed outrage and sought justice for the innocent women.

And then what? India is back to business as usual, reflecting our “this too shall pass” moral and ethical compass. Can we let ‘it’ pass like the many other horrendous occurrences we have let pass? Are we like that only? The answer, it seems, is yes. And that’s a bigger shame!

Read | Manipur horror: This is how a failed State looks

There is a reason why these horrific incidents keep occurring. “The criminal justice system in India is broken, not just creaking,” said jurist Harish Salve. The mob was emboldened with a feeling of impunity because they knew, and know, that ‘it’ will come to pass. Indeed, they may even come to be projected as martyrs to a cause and not the thugs and criminals they are. The stinking, suffocated system is incapable of delivering justice to the two women. Their modesty has been outraged, they have been raped, and in the name of justice, they will suffer further exposure and will be made to relive the ignominy over
and over again.

In the landmark judgement in Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court of India had laid down several key reforms to bring about significant changes in the functioning and structure of police forces across the country. The case was a result of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by former top police officers Prakash Singh and N K Singh, seeking reforms to address police accountability and modernisation issues. The court’s directions focused on three main areas: structural reforms, functional reforms, and accountability measures. “It is only 17 years since. What is the hurry?” a retired judge of a constitutional court said in a message sarcastically.

Each state was directed to set up a State Security Commission (SSC) to ensure that the state government did not exercise unwarranted influence or control over the police. The court mandated that the DGP be selected through a transparent and merit-based process, and officers should have a minimum tenure of two years to ensure stability and effectiveness in the post. It directed that SPs in charge of police stations and other key positions should have a minimum tenure of two years, with exceptions made only for promotion or unavoidable circumstances.

To prevent conflicts of interest and improve efficiency, the court recommended separation of investigation and law and order functions within the police department. The directions included the establishment of a Police Establishment Board to decide on transfers, promotions, and postings of officers below the rank of Superintendent of Police.

And more importantly, to address grievances against police misconduct, each state was instructed to set up an independent Police Complaints Authority at the state and district levels. Towards accountability, the law lords had directed the establishment of Police Reforms Implementation Committees (PRIC) to oversee the implementation of its directions and report progress to the court. They also thoughtfully recommended the creation of a National Security Commission (NSC) to review the functioning of police forces and recommend necessary policy changes. These reforms were meant to enhance the professionalism, efficiency, and accountability of police forces in India. Alas!

But these reforms, even if they were carried out, would not mean much unless the criminal courts too were reformed. Make a visit to the ‘lowly’ magistrate courts. The practitioners know they are “dens of the despicable genre”, said Justice K Chandru (retd), while presiding over a committee constituted by then Chief Justice of Madras High Court, now a senior judge of
the Supreme Court, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Those in the system know about the long-forgotten Justice V S Malimath Committee, constituted in 2000 by the Government of India to recommend comprehensive reforms to improve the efficiency, fairness, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. The committee submitted its report in 2003, suggesting several reforms.

The recommendations were wholesome, detailed, and took note of even the minutiae in them to deliver. It suggested the creation of a National Judicial Commission to appoint and transfer judges to ensure transparency and independence in the judiciary; introduction of plea bargaining to expedite the resolution of minor cases and reduce the burden on the courts; establishment of a National Criminal Justice Mission to coordinate and oversee the implementation of reforms.

On police reforms, it insisted on (a) Separation of investigation and law & order functions, to enhance the efficiency and impartiality of investigation; (b) Establishment of State Security Commissions to insulate the police from political interference and increase their independence; (c) Fixed tenure for police officers to ensure stability and prevent arbitrary transfers.

The committee proposed, on judicial reforms, the creation of additional courts to address the problem of case backlog and reduce delays in the dispensation of justice. It stressed on introduction of time-bound trials, especially for certain categories of offences, to expedite the delivery of justice. Above all, the committee emphasised the need for continuous training and capacity-building programmes for judges and court staff to enhance their efficiency. Alas!

Where are we today on these reforms? Exactly where we were in 2000 and before. It is singularly noteworthy that since the 1991 economic reforms have brought us to where we are today, Prime Minister Modi could proudly tell the US Congress on June 23 that we are now the fifth largest economy in the world and marching towards becoming the third largest. Yet, less than a month later, he is compelled to hang his head in shame over the happenings in Manipur, along with We, the People! Of what use are our economic riches?

(The writer is a practicing advocate in the Madras High Court)