This article has been written by Manu Sharma, 9th semester of law from Amity University Raipur.
ABSTRACT
The Indian judiciary plays a crucial role in enforcing criminal law, as it serves as a watchdog, defending individual rights, and influencing criminal jurisprudence. It interprets criminal laws, ensuring their applicability and establishing legally binding precedents. The judiciary has also been instrumental in promoting legal reform in India, highlighting shortcomings in criminal laws and procedures, leading to significant changes in the criminal justice system.
The Indian Constitution, influenced by the French, American, and Russian Revolutions, has been shaped by the principles of the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Chief Justice emphasized the judiciary’s role in balancing the interests of the public and private sectors.
Pre-constitutional statutes like the Evidence Act, CPC, IPC, and CrPC allow courts to take the initiative and assume the new role given by the Constitution. These statutes allow courts to give creative interpretations consistent with the goals of the constitution.
The Supreme Court in India plays a crucial role in upholding law and preventing crime by penalizing offenders and directing trial courts towards societal goals. It has addressed the responsibilities of trial judges in handling hostile witnesses and emphasized the importance of pursuing the truth. The judiciary supports trial judges’ proactive roles and dynamic approaches in criminal trials to establish the truth in society and achieve criminal justice. The court emphasizes the duty of trial courts to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, ensuring that innocent and guilty individuals are punished. The approach of the judiciary in India is towards the active or dynamic role of trial judges in dealing with hostile witnesses to prevent crime and dispense justice to society. The Indian judiciary faces challenges in implementing criminal law. However, there are opportunities to enhance its function through technology, alternative dispute resolution, and judicial reforms. These reforms can also enhance transparency and infrastructure.
Key words: justice, equity , alternate dispute resolution, equilibrium in right etc.
INTRODUCTION
The Indian Judiciary’s Crucial Role in Enforcing Criminal Law As the protector of the Constitution, the Indian judiciary is essential to making sure that criminal law is applied correctly. Its duties go well beyond only making decisions in court; in addition, it serves as a watchdog, guaranteeing the defence of individual rights and influencing the direction of criminal jurisprudence. The Court as the Law’s Interpreter Criminal laws are primarily interpreted by the judiciary. To ascertain their extent and applicability, it examines laws, rules, and precedents. To guarantee that the law is enforced equitably and consistently, this interpretive function is crucial. The rulings of the judiciary establish legally binding precedents that direct future applications and interpretations of the law.
The Court as the Law’s Interpreter Criminal laws are primarily interpreted by the judiciary. To ascertain their extent and applicability, it examines laws, rules, and precedents. To guarantee that the law is enforced equitably and consistently, this interpretive function is crucial. The rulings of the judiciary establish legally binding precedents that direct future applications and interpretations of the law.
The Court as a Defender of Rights The judiciary upholds individual rights, especially those stipulated in the Constitution, with steadfastness. It guarantees that criminal inquiries, prosecutions, and penalties are carried out in compliance with the requirements of due process of law. In defending the rights of the accused, victims, and society at large, the judiciary has been essential. For example, it has stepped in to defend accused people’s rights against unjust trials, disproportionate bail, and erroneous arrests.
Using the Judiciary as a Spark to Promote Legal Reform in India, judicial reform has frequently been sparked by the courts. It has brought attention to shortcomings in criminal laws and procedures through its rulings, which has prompted legislative action. For instance, the criminal justice system has undergone substantial modifications because of the judiciary’s rulings on matters like juvenile justice, victim compensation, and police reform.
IMPORTANT ROLE OF COURT IN ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
The Preamble of the Indian Constitution indicates that the French, American, and Russian Revolutions had an impact on those who drafted our document. The principles stated in the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are reflected in its contents in Parts III and IV. It is important to remember that these records were created in the 1940s. The intrinsic conflict between Part-III and Part-IV, or the DPSP and FRs, was recognized by our founding fathers. Equality of importance was important, and it was only a question of time until they received it. The disagreement that resulted from the initial, as anticipated, prioritization of the Fundamental Rights over Individual Rights was brought up by the First Prime Minister, who made the following comment during the discussion of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution:
“I would like to draw the attention of the house to something that is not adequately stressed either in Parliament or in the country. We stress greatly and argue in courts of law about the Fundamental Rights. Rightly so, but there is such a thing also as the Directive Principles of Constitution. Those are, as the constitution says, the fundamental in the governance of the country. If there is an inherent contradiction in the constitution between the F.R. and Directive Principles of State Policy, it is up to this parliament to remove the contradiction and make the F. Rights subsume the Directive Principles” [1]
The then-CJI’s remarks at the Supreme Court’s inception, which followed, demonstrated the judiciary’s involvement in resolving the contradiction:
“On the court will fall the delicate and difficult task of ensuring to the citizen the enjoyment of his guaranteed rights consistently with the right of society and the state”[2]
Thus, the Chief Justice was emphasising on the balancing act of the judiciary whereas the Constitution envisages the judiciary to be proactive in achieving social, economic and political justice (Preamble and Article 38). After Independence it was hoped that our district judiciary would evolve in line with the expectations reflected in the Constitution. But the British Indian framework of our judiciary was well versed in the implementation of pre-constitutional laws like IPC, CrPC, CPC, Evidence Act etc. and moulded as a law-and-order machinery as a bastion of strong administration. It has been reluctant to take up the role of an active agent of social change. Despite repeated admonitions by the apex court and others, this hesitation persists. Old habits die hard. But we must proactively mobilise ourselves if we are to achieve the goals set by our founding fathers.
Pre constitutional statutes, such as the Evidence Act, CPC, IPC, and CrPC, really give the courts the ability to take the initiative and assume the new role that the Constitution has given them. Fascinatingly, when making decisions under these rules, the courts can even appear to balance the interests of the public and private sectors. This is because of the essential role that the statute has given them. This stance aids the courts in giving the statute creative interpretations that are consistent with the goals of the constitution. Upon closer inspection, these legislations are evidently court-centric, which allows them to fulfil their crucial function. When one looks at how the IPC, Evidence Act, or CrPC are used, this becomes clear.
As an example, let’s look at how the IPC’s provisions are applied in a few real-world scenarios. When a judge invokes mistake of fact as a defence, the notion of a reasonable man is frequently compromised by the judge’s social group. This occurs when someone claims the right to private defence, insanity, or abrupt and severe provocation, among other defences. An examination of the ruling in Ram Bahadur Thapa v. State of Orissa[3] can help to illustrate this. In which a Gurkha stabbed and injured several people at night mistaking them for evil spirits. The Orissa High Court granted him the defence of mistake of fact, stating that he had indeed mistaken his victims for evil spirits. Nevertheless, the question that can be raised against this decision is whether the man had exercised the ordinary prudence of a prudent person. Similarly, the analysis of Madhavan v State of Kerala[4] also indicates that the ‘prudent person’ who is suddenly provoked may differ depending on the section of society to which the judge belongs. The decisions of Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar[5] and Ashraf v State of Kerala[6] can be analysed to show how the court may respond differently in appreciating similar fact-situations against the same statutory provision in the IPC.
These judicial pronouncements and facts show that court plays vital role in administration of criminal justice. Which helps in proper implementation of criminal law, and it contributed information of new criminal law.
THE JUDICIARY’S ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING NEW CRIMINAL LAW
The judiciary is crucial to the execution of new criminal laws. Courts make sure that these new laws are applied equitably, consistently, and in line with the values of justice and equality because they are the last arbiters of legal interpretation. The following are some of the principal functions of the judiciary in this process:
Interpretation and Application:
- Clarifying Ambiguities: New laws sometimes have provisions that need to be clarified or contain ambiguities. To guarantee that these rules are followed appropriately and consistently, the judiciary interprets them.
- Determining Constitutionality: Courts must make sure that newly enacted legislation don’t conflict with the Indian Constitution. If a law is determined to be unconstitutional, it may be overturned.
- Equilibrium in right: New laws frequently require striking a balance between conflicting rights and interests. To make sure that these balances are achieved equitably and in conformity with the concepts of justice, the judiciary is essential.
Upholding the Law:
- Issuing Decrees and Orders: Courts possess the authority to make decrees and orders that implement the terms of newly enacted criminal statutes. This include making arrest orders, setting bail, and enforcing penalties.
- Supervising Investigations: To make sure that investigations carried out by law enforcement organizations are done properly and in compliance with the law, the judiciary might supervise them.
Creating Case Law:
- Setting Precedents: Courts have the authority to create precedents by ruling on cases, which serve as guidelines for the future implementation of new laws. The uniformity and equity of the law’s implementation can be ensured with the aid of these precedents.
- Adapting to Changing Circumstances: By promoting legislative reforms or offering fresh interpretations of existing provisions, the court can adjust the law to changing conditions.
Individual Rights Protection:
- Ensuring Due Process: The courts are essential in defending the rights of people who are being accused of crimes. This involves making certain that their rights to due process are upheld and that they receive fair treatment throughout the criminal justice system.
- Resolving Injustices: By offering remedies to those who have been injured, courts can resolve injustices that may occur during the application of new laws.
To sum up, the court is essential to the enforcement of new criminal legislation in India. Courts contribute to ensuring that new laws are implemented fairly, consistently, and in line with the values of justice and equality by interpreting and applying the law, upholding it, creating case law, and defending individual rights.
INDIAN JUDICIARY ON CRIME PREVENTION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
By penalizing offenders, the Supreme Court actively contributes to upholding law and order in society and preventing the rising trend of crime in India. It tries to direct trial courts toward achieving the societal goals of the criminal justice system. In multiple rulings, the Supreme Court has voiced its grave concerns and addressed trial judges’ responsibilities when handling hostile witnesses. It has also, in several instances, highlighted the significance of pursuing the truth and chastised judges for their inaction during trial proceedings. The judiciary consistently supports trial judges’ proactive roles and courts’ dynamic approaches in criminal trials as a means of ultimately establishing the truth in society and achieving criminal justice at the end.
The Apex Court has further observed that the fate of the proceedings in a criminal case cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, because crimes are public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the whole community and is harmful to the society in general. The trial courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law.[7] It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties.[8] Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law.[9] It was observed by the Apex Court that, society suffers by wrong convictions, and it equally suffers by wrong acquittals. [10]
The Apex Court always put emphasis on active participation of the trial judges in the evidence collecting process to discover the truth. The higher courts have asked the trial judges in several cases to invoke their inquisitorial powers during trial to achieve criminal justice. The Apex Court has advised the trial judges to take strict action against the hostile witnesses and punish them for giving false evidence in the court. It also favours proactive role of judges in the trial to elicit the truth by invoking the inquisitorial power under the law of evidence.[11] to achieve justice. Thus, the approach of Judiciary in India is always towards the active or dynamic role of the trial judges in dealing with hostile witnesses in the trial for prevention of crime and dispensation of justice to the society.
POSSIBILITIES AND DIFFICULTIES
The Indian judiciary faces numerous obstacles in its efforts to efficiently implement criminal law, despite its crucial role. Among them are:
- Case backlog: The judiciary is overburdened with cases, which causes delays in the administration of justice.
- Lack of resources: The judiciary’s capacity to operate effectively is frequently hampered by a lack of judges, courtrooms, and other resources.
- Corruption: The public’s trust can be eroded, and the efficient application of the law can be impeded by corruption in the judiciary.
- Political meddling: The independence and impartiality of the judiciary may be jeopardized by political meddling. Nonetheless, there exist prospects for the judiciary to augment its function in executing criminal legislation.
Nonetheless, there exist prospects for the judiciary to augment its function in executing criminal legislation. These consist of:
- Technology: Using technology can help increase efficiency and streamline legal procedures.
- Alternative dispute resolution: These procedures can assist deliver justice more quickly while also lessening the load on the court system.
- Judicial reforms: The judiciary can operate more efficiently with changes like expanding the number of judges, boosting transparency, and upgrading infrastructure.
CONCLUSION
The Indian judiciary is a vital force in enforcing criminal law, defending individual rights, and influencing criminal jurisprudence. It interprets laws, upholds due process, and promotes legal reform. The Indian Constitution, influenced by the French, American, and Russian Revolutions, emphasizes equality and balances public and private sectors. Pre-constitutional statutes like the Evidence Act, CPC, IPC, and CrPC allow courts to take initiative and interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court upholds law and prevents crime by penalizing offenders and directing trial courts towards societal goals. It emphasizes the duty of trial judges to maintain public confidence in justice administration and encourages active participation in evidence collection. Challenges faced by the Indian judiciary include case backlogs, lack of resources, corruption, and political interference. Opportunities for improvement include technology, alternative dispute resolution, and judicial reforms, which can increase efficiency, streamline legal procedures, reduce court load, improve justice delivery, and enhance transparency and infrastructure.
[1] Quoted in Chinnappa Reddy, ’The court and the constitution”, (2008) 18-19
[2] Quoted in Chinnappa Reddy, , ’The court and the constitution”, (2008) 21.
[3] AIR 1960 Ori 161.
[4] AIR 1966 Ker 258. It was a case where the husband was found to have been suddenly provoked by the throw of the mangal sutra at him by his wife. There could be difference of opinion as to ‘prudent man’ in the same circumstances if the judge is of a different hue and holds different view. 5 (1964) 1 Cri. L.J. 138
[5] See Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, 1981 SCC (Cri.) 683, Vincent v. State of Kerala
[6] 1993 1 KLT 501
[7] Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, Appeal (Crl) No. 761 of 2001 dated 15.04.2002
[8] Viscount Simon in Stirland vs. Director of Public Prosecutor, reported in 1944 (2)
[9] Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Another, 2002 (5) SCC 234
[10] Supra note 7
[11] The Indian evidence Act, 1872 (section 167)
