The Bombay High Court’s recent acquittal of all 12 men previously convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, which killed 187 people and injured over 800, has raised serious concerns about the effectiveness of India’s criminal justice system.

• The High Court had concluded the prosecution “utterly failed” to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Case Overview

• Incident: 7 serial blasts on Mumbai suburban trains on 11 July 2006.
• Initial Conviction: In 2015, 5 sentenced to death and 7 to life imprisonment by MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act) court.

Issues Highlighted in the Judgment

• Failure of Criminal Justice System:
  • Investigation & Prosecution: Gaps in evidence, witness reliability, legal scrutiny.
  • Delay in Justice: 19 years for final verdict – violates rights of accused & victims.
  • Witness Protection: Weak system leads to reliance on “stock witnesses.”
  • Confession Admissibility: Courts often reject police-recorded confessions.
• Systemic Challenges:
  • Pressure on Police: Political & public demand for quick results → hasty arrests.
  • Lack of Coordination: Between police, prosecution, judiciary.
  • Technological Gaps: Outdated methods, need for video-recorded confessions.
• Collective Failure: Not just police but also prosecution, judiciary, and policy framework.
• Implications of Acquittal
  • For Innocents: Loss of 19 years of life.
  • For Society: Real perpetrators still unpunished.
  • For System: Erosion of public trust in police, prosecution, and judiciary.

About India’s Criminal Justice System

• Criminal justice is a system of policies and organizations used by national and local governments to maintain social control, prevent and regulate crime, and penalize those who break the law.
• India’s Criminal Justice System (CJS) is based on British colonial legal architecture—governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Indian Evidence Act, and several special laws. 
• Objective:
  • Prevent and control crime.
  • Maintain public order and peace.
  • Protect rights of victims and accused.
  • Punish and rehabilitate offenders.
  • Safeguard life and property.
• Legal Framework:
  • Judiciary administered by Supreme Court (federal) and High Courts (state).
  • Federal laws (IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act) govern all agencies.

Components of India’s Criminal Justice System

It comprises five main components that work in a coordinated manner to ensure justice is delivered:

• Police: First contact point, Registers FIRs, investigates crimes, arrests suspects, collects evidence, and files charge sheets.
  • Structure: State-controlled, led by the Director General of Police (DGP), with a hierarchy from DGP to constables.
  • Central agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for interstate/international cases, Central Intelligence Bureau (CIB) for intelligence, and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) for internal security.
• Judiciary: Conducts fair and impartial trials, upholds rule of law, delivers verdicts, and determines punishment.
  • Structure:
    • Supreme Court: Apex court, handles appeals and constitutional matters.
    • High Courts: State-level, oversee subordinate courts and handle writs.
    • Subordinate Courts:
      • Sessions Courts: Handle serious offenses (e.g., murder, death sentences subject to High Court confirmation).
      • Judicial Magistrates: First Class (up to 3 years imprisonment) and Second Class (up to 1 year).
• Prosecution: Represent the state in criminal trials, examine evidence, ensure due process, and strive for conviction of the guilty.
  • Functions: Maintains case files, presents evidence, cross-examines witnesses, and seeks appropriate punishment without using unfair means.
• Prisons and Correctional System: Secure custody of undertrials and convicts, ensure reformation and rehabilitation.
  • Functions: Provide food, clothing, medical care, vocational training, and rehabilitation programs (e.g., yoga, counseling).
• Legal Aid and Support Services: Ensures access to justice for the poor and marginalized under Article 39A of the Constitution.

Constitutional Framework

Statistics related to India’s Criminal Justice System

• Total Crime: According to the NCRB report (Crime in India 2023, released in September 2024), India registered approximately 59.24 lakh cognizable crimes in 2023, showing a marginal decrease of 2.3% from the 60.63 lakh cases reported in 2022. 
• Crime Rate: The crime rate (cases per 100,000 population) stood at 427.4, compared to 445.9 in the previous year.
• No. of Judges: India has 21,285 judges, or approximately 15 judges per million population.
  • Significantly lower than the 1987 Law Commission’s recommendation of 50 judges per million population.
• Case Pendency: As of September 2024, approximately 4.2 crore cases remain pending in various courts, with criminal cases constituting 33.4% of this backlog.
• Conviction Rates: The overall conviction rate for IPC crimes stands at 59.3%, showing improvement from 57.2% in 2022. 
• Police Infrastructure: The actual police strength stands at 157 per 100,000 population against the United Nations-recommended 222, indicating significant understaffing.

Challenges in India’s Criminal Justice System

Police-Related Challenges

• Custodial Violence and Abuse: Despite legal prohibitions (Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration, 1980), custodial Violence and deaths persist, eroding public trust. 
  • Between 2016–2022, 11,656 custodial deaths were reported, with only 26 convictions for 1,888 cases from 2001–2021 (5% conviction rate).
  • Violates fundamental rights (Article 21) and fuels distrust in law enforcement.
• Corruption: Bribery, extortion, and nexus with criminal elements are prevalent. 
  • Undermines fair investigations and allows offenders to evade justice.
• Political Interference: Political influence affects police appointments, transfers, and investigations, compromising autonomy.
• Understaffing and Lack of Female Officers: Police-to-population ratio is 157 per 100,000 (2024), below the UN’s recommended 222. 
  • Overburdened forces struggle with crime prevention and investigation, particularly for crimes against women.
• Inadequate Infrastructure and Training: Lack of modern forensic tools, outdated weapons, and insufficient training for cybercrimes and advanced investigations.
  • Weak evidence collection leads to low conviction rates (e.g., 24.2% for cybercrimes in 2024).

Judiciary-Related Challenges

• Case Backlog and Delayed Justice: Approximately 4.2 crore cases were pending in 2024, with 33.4% being criminal cases. 
  • Delays violate the right to a speedy trial (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979).
  • “Justice delayed is justice denied,” eroding public confidence and prolonging victim suffering.
• Shortage of Judges: India has 15 judges per million people, far below the recommended 50. 
  • Overburdened judiciary slows case disposal, exacerbating pendency.
• Low Conviction Rates: Overall IPC conviction rate was 54.2% in 2022 (down from 59.2% in 2020. 
  • Reflects poor investigation quality, tampered evidence, and judicial inefficiencies, allowing offenders to escape liability.
• Political and Corrupt Influences: Political pressure on judicial processes can lead to biased rulings or acquittals of influential accused.
  • Undermines impartiality, as seen in high-profile cases where accused escape liability due to external pressures.

Prosecution-Related Challenges

• Burden of Proof: The adversarial system’s presumption of innocence burdens prosecutors to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, often hindered by weak police investigations.
  • Contributes to low conviction rates and delays in justice delivery.
• Dependence on Police: Prosecutors rely on police-collected evidence, which may be incomplete, tampered, or poorly documented.
  • Weak cases fail in court, as seen in acquittals in cases like the 2006 Mumbai train blasts.
• Resource Constraints: Limited training and resources for public prosecutors, especially in district courts.
  • Reduces effectiveness in arguing complex cases, particularly for emerging crimes like cybercrime.

Prison-Related Challenges

• Overcrowding: Over 75% of India’s prison inmates are undertrials.
  • Violates prisoners’ rights to dignity and health (Rama Murthy v. State of Karnataka, 1997) and strains resources.
• Inhumane Conditions: Poor sanitation, inadequate healthcare, and lack of food/clothing, especially for women prisoners (R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006).
  • Leads to health issues and deaths, with suicides and custodial deaths reported as serious concerns.
• Underfunding and Understaffing: Insufficient trained staff and funding for prison modernization. 
  • The Mulla Committee (1980) highlighted the need for better facilities and staff training.
• Lack of Legal Aid: Many under-trials, especially from marginalized groups, lack access to legal aid, prolonging detention.
  • Violates Article 21 rights, as prolonged detention without trial is unconstitutional (Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, 1979).

Systemic and Social Challenges

• Caste and Gender Biases: Disproportionate arrests and convictions of Dalits and Adivasis. 
  • While their combined share in population is 24.2%, their representation in the prison population is considerably higher, around 34%.
  • Women are more vulnerable to custodial violence and inadequate facilities in prisons.
• Rising New Crimes: Increasing cybercrimes, organized crimes, and white-collar crimes due to digitization and low digital literacy (9.7% rise in economic offenses in 2024).
  • Current system lacks specialized training and infrastructure to address these effectively.
• Public Trust Deficit: Corruption, custodial violence, and delayed justice create fear and distrust among citizens. 
  • The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2023 shows India ranking 79th out of 142 countries.
  • Discourages reporting of crimes, particularly among marginalized communities.
• Juvenile Justice Gaps: Lack of specialized police units, untrained magistrates, and inadequate aftercare for juveniles (Juvenile Justice Act, 2000).
  • Hinders rehabilitation and reintegration of young offenders, increasing recidivism risks.

Government Reforms and Initiatives in India’s Criminal Justice System

• New Criminal Laws (2023)
  • The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS, 2023), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS, 2023), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA, 2023) replaced the Indian Penal Code (1860), Code of Criminal Procedure (1973), and Indian Evidence Act (1872), respectively.
  • Key Features:
    • BNS: Defines new offenses (e.g., organized crime, terrorism), introduces community service as punishment, and prioritizes victim compensation.
    • BNSS: Mandates time-bound investigations (e.g., 60 days for serious crimes), allows video-recorded confessions, and strengthens forensic evidence collection.
    • BSA: Modernizes evidence rules, admitting electronic evidence and expert opinions to align with digital crimes.
• Police Modernization Programs
  • The Modernisation of Police Forces (MPF) scheme, launched in 2000 and strengthened post-2014, allocates funds (e.g., ₹26,000 crore for 2017–2022) for upgrading infrastructure, weapons, and training.
  • Key Features:
    • Equips police with forensic tools, CCTV, and cybercrime units.
    • Establishes training academies for handling new crimes (e.g., cybercrime, financial fraud).
    • Increases recruitment of female officers to address gender-based crimes (4.45 lakh cases against women, 2022).
• Judicial Reforms: Fast-Track and Special Courts
  • Establishment of Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs) under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to expedite trials.
  • Key Features:
    • FTSCs target crimes against women and children (e.g., 1,634 FTSCs operational by 2023 for rape and POCSO cases).
    • Lok Adalats resolve minor disputes via conciliation, disposing of 1.2 crore cases in 2022.
• Prison Reforms: Modernization and Rehabilitation
  • The Model Prison Manual (2016) and central funding (₹18,000 crore, 2002–2010, per my notes) aim to modernize prisons, improve conditions, and promote rehabilitation.
  • Key Features:
    • Upgrades sanitation, healthcare, and vocational training (e.g., yoga, counseling).
    • Expands open prisons (44 jails in 2010) for convicts with good conduct.
    • Women-specific reforms include separate wards and prenatal/postnatal care (R.D. Upadhyay v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2006).
• Legal Aid Expansion
  • The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, strengthened by the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA), provides free legal aid under Article 39A for marginalized groups.
  • Key Features:
    • Funds legal aid clinics in districts and jails.
    • Supports under-trials, women, and Dalits/Adivasis.
• Technology Integration: E-Courts and Digital Tools
• • The e-Courts Project (Phase I: 2007, Phase II: 2015, Phase III: 2023) digitizes judicial processes, supported by the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022.
  • Key Features:
    • E-Courts enable video-conferencing trials and case management (e.g., 3,000 e-courts operational by 2023).
    • The 2022 Act allows biometric data collection (e.g., fingerprints, iris scans) to improve investigations.

Way Forward

• Enhance Police Accountability and Training: Implement Supreme Court guidelines (Pratap Singh v. Union of India, 2006) for transparent DGP appointments and a 2-year tenure. 
  • Train police in forensic and cybercrime investigations to improve evidence quality.
• Strengthen Witness Protection: Establish a robust witness protection program to ensure credible testimonies, reducing reliance on stock witnesses, as highlighted in the Mumbai bombings case.
• Increase Judicial Capacity: Fill judicial vacancies to achieve 50 judges per million (Law Commission recommendation). 
  • Expand fast-track and special courts to reduce the 4.2 crore case backlog (2024).
• Modernize Prison Infrastructure: Allocate funds for prison modernization to address overcrowding (70% under-trials in 2020) and improve sanitation, healthcare, and rehabilitation programs.
• Improve Legal Aid Access: Strengthen implementation of Article 39A to provide free legal aid to under-trials, especially marginalized groups, to reduce prolonged detentions.
• Adopt Technology in Investigations: Mandate video-recorded confessions and invest in forensic tools to enhance evidence reliability, addressing gaps seen in cases like the 2006 Mumbai bombings.
• Address Systemic Biases: Train police and judicial officers to eliminate caste and gender biases, ensuring equitable treatment for Dalits, Adivasis, and women.

• Technological Advancement: More investigating officers and prosecutors, their regular training in use of technology and well-equipped forensic laboratories are required to improve detection rate, better-quality investigation, and the conviction of the accused.
  • Example: e-Courts project aims to computerize the working of courts in India and make the judicial system more efficient.
  • Supreme Court Vidhik Anuvaad Software (SUVAS) and Supreme Court Portal for Assistance in Court’s Efficiency (SUPACE) in its systems.

Conclusion

India’s CJS, while rooted in a robust legal framework, is plagued by delays, corruption, and resource constraints, as evident in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings acquittals. Urgent reforms across police, judiciary, prosecution, prisons, and legal aid are essential to restore public trust and ensure timely justice.

DOWNLOAD PDF