India is a country of laws, but not of justice. This is the harsh reality that millions of Indians face every day, as they struggle to get their grievances redressed by a system that is plagued by corruption, inefficiency, politicisation and apathy. The recent protests by truck drivers against the new law on hit-and-run cases, which imposes a 10-year jail term for fleeing the accident spot, have exposed the deep-rooted distrust and dissatisfaction of the people with the criminal justice system in India.
The truck drivers are not alone in their frustration. According to the latest data from the National Judicial Data Grid, there are over 40 million pending cases in the lower courts, and another 4.5 million in the high courts and the Supreme Court. The average time taken to dispose of a case in the lower courts is about five years, and in some cases, it can stretch up to decades. The main reasons for this huge backlog are the shortage of judges, inadequate infrastructure, frequent adjournments, complex procedures and lack of accountability.
The situation is equally grim in the police department, which is supposed to maintain law and order, prevent and detect crime, and protect the rights of the citizens. The police force in India is understaffed, overworked, poorly trained and ill-equipped. The police-population ratio in India is 137 per lakh, which is much lower than the UN-recommended standard of 222 per lakh. The police also face political interference, public pressure, human rights violations and low public confidence.
The need for police and judicial reforms in India has been recognised and recommended by various committees and commissions since independence. The most comprehensive and authoritative among them was the National Police Commission, which submitted eight reports between 1979 and 1981, covering a wide range of aspects of police functioning. The commission suggested several measures to make the police more professional, accountable, responsive and people-friendly. Some of the key recommendations were:
- The police should be insulated from political and executive control, and should function under the supervision of an independent and statutory body, such as a State Security Commission or a Police Establishment Board.
- The police should have a fixed tenure of office, and should not be transferred or suspended arbitrarily or for extraneous reasons.
- The police should have adequate manpower, infrastructure, equipment, training and modernisation to deal with the emerging challenges of crime and security.
- The police should respect and uphold the human rights of the people, and should be subject to a credible and transparent mechanism of complaints and grievances redressal.
- The police should foster a cordial and cooperative relationship with the public, and should involve them in community policing and crime prevention initiatives.
Similarly, the need for judicial reforms in India has been emphasised by various committees and commissions, such as the Law Commission of India, the Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms, the Arrears Committee, the Justice J.S. Verma Committee on Judicial Accountability, and the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee on Collegium System. Some of the common suggestions made by these bodies were:
- The number of judges should be increased at all levels, and the vacancies should be filled up expeditiously.
- The infrastructure and facilities of the courts should be improved, and the use of technology and digitisation should be enhanced.
- The procedures and processes of the courts should be simplified, rationalised and streamlined, and the unnecessary delays and adjournments should be avoided.
- The quality and efficiency of the judges should be improved, and they should be provided with regular training and evaluation.
- The accountability and transparency of the judges should be ensured, and they should be subject to a robust and independent mechanism of complaints and disciplinary action.
Despite these well-researched and well-reasoned recommendations, the police and judicial reforms in India have remained largely unimplemented or partially implemented. The main obstacle to the reforms has been the lack of political will and consensus among the various stakeholders, especially the central and state governments, who are reluctant to lose their control and influence over the police and the judiciary. The vested interests of the bureaucracy, the lawyers, the police and the judges have also hindered the reforms. The apathy and ignorance of the public have also contributed to the status quo.
The time has come to break this deadlock and bring about the much-needed police and judicial reforms in India. The reforms are not only essential for the delivery of justice and the rule of law, but also for the preservation of democracy and the protection of human rights. The reforms are also crucial for the economic and social development of the country, as they would enhance the ease of doing business, the investment climate, the public safety and the social harmony.
The reforms cannot be achieved by any one agency or authority alone. They require the collective and concerted efforts of all the stakeholders, including the central and state governments, the parliament and the legislatures, the judiciary and the bar, the police and the civil society, and most importantly, the people of India. The reforms also require a change in the mindset and the attitude of all the parties involved, from confrontation to cooperation, from resistance to acceptance, and from indifference to involvement.
The reforms are not impossible or impractical. They are feasible and desirable. They have been successfully implemented in many other countries, such as the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Singapore and Hong Kong. They have also been endorsed by the Supreme Court of India, which in 2006, in the landmark case of Prakash Singh vs Union of India, issued seven binding directions to the central and state governments to initiate police reforms. The court also appointed a monitoring committee to oversee the implementation of the reforms. However, the compliance of the court's orders has been dismal and disappointing, with most of the states either ignoring or defying the directions.
The reforms are not optional or negotiable. They are mandatory and non-negotiable. They are the constitutional and legal obligations of the governments and the authorities concerned. They are also the moral and ethical duties of the citizens and the society at large. The reforms are not a favour or a concession. They are a right and a necessity. They are the demand and the aspiration of the people of India.
The reforms are not a matter of choice or convenience. They are a matter of urgency and priority. They cannot be postponed or diluted any further. They have to be implemented and enforced without any delay or compromise. The reforms are not a luxury or a privilege. They are a necessity and a requirement. They are the need and the challenge of the hour.