From Complainants to Consumers — A Perversion of the Criminal Process

(This is a long post, the title of which was changed on May 4, 2019)

Consider a scenario. Geetha loaned her friend Swati a sizeable sum. A year on, Geetha starts asking her friend to repay the loan. She sends many texts, but Swati doesn't reply to a single one. Frustrated, Geetha comes to you, her friendly neighbourhood lawyer, for some advice on how to proceed and says she wants to take this to court. What do you do? It is possible to think of many responses, but that's not the point. The point, is, that there is no clear answer on how a dispute is presented in law. This process, and the ultimate result, is a function of the client's means, demands, and a lawyer's imagination. This post explores the process of going to court through the lens of a hypothetical client, Geetha, with modest means and a lawyer's assistance. 

The Realities Facing Consumers of the Legal Process

What is Geetha's trouble? She wants her money back. One way to do this is by filing a civil suit for recovery. This requires that Geetha go to court with a written plea (plaint) explaining what happened, disclosing all the material she can muster to support her claim, and then call upon the court to decide whether or not it should be granted. If the court agrees with Geetha, she gets her money back, probably with interest. How would this scenario play out in real life? Every different step that I flagged above — filing a plaint, getting your evidence, going through trial, and arguing the case — will take at least a few months to complete because of the high pendency plaguing our courts. This means that even a basic suit for recovery drags on for at least a couple of years. Because of this, the probability of having to repay the principal loan amount with interest some years down the line creates very little pressure for Swati to try and resolve the dispute with Geetha.  

There is another way to present Geetha's case: Allege that Swati had never intended to repay the loan, and Swati dishonestly induced Geetha into giving her the money. Now the issue is no longer a simple recovery, but a case of cheating which is a crime, where the consequences go beyond money and threaten to take away Swati's liberty. How might Geetha start a criminal case? Either by going straight to court, like her civil suit, or by asking the police to look into the matter. As we now know, going to court for the recovery suit is a long and painstaking process. The same is true for a criminal complaint, and so the threat of imprisonment becomes too remote for anyone to care about. But, if Geetha can convince the police to look into her case, then we get a drastically different scenario. For starters, it is the State that becomes in-charge of pursuing the case against Swati — Geetha is only a witness now. More importantly, the threat of coercive action — a decree or a guilty verdict — which seemed like a distant dream in a court case, becomes very imminent when the police is involved. This is because the police officer can arrest persons suspected of committing crimes. The recalcitrant Swati might begin to have doubts about her stance knowing that there is a likelihood of her being arrested, and might take the steps needed to resolve the dispute.   

Systemic Incentives to Pursue Criminal Proceedings

The previous section explained why, when presented with a choice, consumers like Geetha might be inclined to portray their problems as criminal cases for police to investigate: The relative advantages of this kind of setup are substantial when compared to a situation where someone goes to court directly. Given the relative advantage, it is not impossible to imagine some consumers will be motivated to paint all their disputes as criminal cases. Equally, it is quite possible that police might go ahead and arrest people for flimsy reasons — something hinted at in the glaring disproportion between the rates of arrest and the rates of conviction. 

How do we curb this? I can think of three ways. First, reduce the scope of what all can be called a "crime". In doing so, you reduce the scope for persons to try and contort their disputes into criminal cases. Second, and far more useful, is to restrict the powers of arrest for police. This power is the game-changer when we consider the relative attractiveness of the criminal process today, as the police can arrest without conclusive proof and only based on suspicions. So, it would make sense to regulate this power tightly, making sure that the bludgeon of arrest cannot be wielded arbitrarily. Third, and linked to the second, is to make police decision-making more transparent. Make guidelines that the police have to consider before deciding to take up a case, and render it necessary to justify every departure from the mandate.

Unfortunately, the Indian criminal process incorporates none of the above. The routine manner in which every statute today seems to carry an "offence" provision, and the damning refusal by successive governments to reconsider the archaic Indian Penal Code of 1860, ensures that a whole lot of seemingly ordinary conduct can be labelled as "criminal" to trigger the process. Nor is there any transparency over police decision-making. There are many internal circulars etc. which regulate how cases are to be taken up — something I saw in the recent 66-A litigation — but none of these are voluntarily published online or elsewhere. What makes the over-criminalisation and non-transparency much worse, though, is the daft manner in which the criminal process confers, and regulates, the powers of arrest vested with police. There are three different systems of regulation on arrest powers in place today, and as I demonstrate below, all three are in pretty bad shape.  

The first regulation is by way of the cognizable / non-cognizable divide — certain offences have been labelled "cognizable" in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973, and for only those can the police arrest persons without needing prior judicial permission. However, nothing in the law offers any guidance on how to decide which offences should be called cognizable. There is no provision in statutes, nor any judicial test, that governs this critical restraint on police power. What results is manifest arbitrariness. For instance, consider the current sets of offences dealing with sexual assault. While "outraging the modesty" of a woman is a cognizable offence, "sexual harassment" conduct is not. How to distinguish between the two is anyone's guess, and thus the theoretical "restraint" of calling some offences non-cognizable becomes redundant.          

The second regulation on arrest powers is the level of suspicion that police officers must have before deciding to arrest. This is found in Section 41 Cr.P.C., which unhelpfully tells us that a police officer can arrest if she has reason to believe a cognizable offence has been committed. Allowing the police to arrest on an "I know it when I see it" approach is pointless, and perhaps this is why the judiciary has stepped in to construct an additional test of "necessity" to regulate arrests. Basically, courts tell police not to arrest persons unless there is a need to. The most prominent example from the Supreme Court was the decision in Arnesh Kumar [(2014) 8 SCC 273], which created strict rules of necessity to restrict arrests in cases where the suspected crime was punishable up to 7 years. However, the overlapping scope of different offences where similar kinds of conduct are punished differently — as seen in the sexual assault example above — has also undercut this reform measure. It is becoming increasingly common to lump in an allegation regarding an offence punishable with 10 years only with a view to avoid the rigours of Arnesh Kumar.          

The third regulation on arrest powers, more indirect than the others, is the law on bail. By subjecting the police to strict scrutiny during bail hearings, courts send a clear signal that flimsy arrests won't be tolerated. Pop-culture wants us to believe this is true — with all that verbiage about "bail is the rule and jail is the exception". A hard look at India's prison statistics is all you need to see through this deception. In a system where undertrial prisoners populate over 65% of prisons, bail is the exception, and jail the rule. Because bail is granted at a premium, normally ensuring that the person remains in jail for at least some weeks and also with stringent conditions upon release, consumer demand for the criminal process and arrests remains high.  

Perhaps because they are aware that none of these regulations working very well, courts in India have also proved willing to judicially terminate pending cases or investigations where a "purely civil case" is masquerading as a criminal one, by calling such proceedings an "abuse of process". This purported solution is a non-starter, sadly. To ask a court, or any reasonable person, to decide if a dispute is a "purely civil case" when the matter is still being investigated / inquired into, is to put the cart before the horse. Naturally, this renders the entire setting arbitrary, where what is sauce for the goose might not prove to be sauce for the gander.  

The Consequences of Commodification

This commodification of our criminal process, with its long delays and lack of effective regulation on what kinds of cases can be called "criminal", is not without consequences. In the zone of consumer choice that this post identified and discussed, this commodification is slowly coming to define how the criminal process is considered by all stakeholders.  

The most visible example of this is, again, the law on bail. I mentioned before that this has proved to be an ineffectual regulation on excessive arrests. But to think that this is because our courts love to keep people behind bars is a bit of a stretch. Instead, as has been argued elsewhere, courts have come to attach a premium to granting bail largely because they also acknowledge the need for some kind of pre-trial justice. Aware of the high pendency, courts view the issue of pre-trial custody not merely as one of preventing an accused from tampering with evidence or absconding, but as a matter of doing justice by the victim of a crime. Because of this, today it is part of standard practice to consider the "gravity" of offences while deciding the issue of bail. At the same time, courts are encouraged not to dwell too much on the probity of these allegations at the pre-trial stage. Ultimately then, we are back to square one, with police arrests sanctified on allegations and little else.

Not only this, but in financial fraud matters, it has become increasingly common for courts to require that the accused deposit a chunk of the alleged criminal gains in order to be released on bail. In their quest to do justice by the consumers, it somehow stops mattering to courts that they are effectively decimating the presumption of innocence by demanding a pound of flesh from the accused on the strength of unproven allegations. In this manner, even the courts end up reinforcing the motivation that consumers might have to portray their disputes as criminal cases. All the while decrying other such instances as an "abuse of process". The absurdity is, indeed, remarkable.

Besides eroding the presumption of innocence theoretically guaranteed to all persons, the unabated commodification of the criminal process also promotes corruption. Basically, the system is holding out the promise of a fast-tracked dispute resolution model through the police. But there are just not that many police officers out there, to cater to the demand for their services. This is not only the case for India but anywhere in the world. This demand-supply mismatch means that persons are willing to give a higher price for such services, and the police have to exercise some discretion on what cases they choose to investigate. Since there is minimal transparency in this context, how do we know that the police are picking the cases where they are needed most, and not based on some arbitrary factors? Such an environment fosters corruption and gravely damages this valuable public service.   

Conclusion: An Identity Crisis

Most often, this blog adopts the perspective of a defendant, or that of an outside observer critiquing the law. In adopting such a consumer-centric lens, my objective was to present the criminal process — comprising both the police and courts — from another perspective. In this context, the law is a service for people to make use of. Looking at the criminal process through this lens, its many facets appear in a different light. The reviling over-breadth of the criminal law becomes a welcome feature, because it gives litigants more choice in how to frame their disputes in law. Similarly, in this context, the wide powers of arrest with police officers are not only abhorrent but also desirable, as they help exert pressure to get persons at the negotiating table and resolve disputes quicker. 

This perspective helps to understand the disappearing presumption of innocence, as today even courts seem to be on board with a notion of using the pre-trial stage to dispense generous dollops of justice without having proof of guilt or innocence. But, since our system is not designed to sponsor this "pre-trial justice" and remains committed, at least in theory, to ideas like the presumption of innocence, this commodification of the criminal process creates serious contradictions. Today, it is justifiable to keep someone in custody for "not-cooperating" with investigation. It is legally proper to keep persons in jail for refusing to simply bend over and accept the allegations against them, and remedy whatever alleged wrongs have been suffered by a complainant. But all of this is in the shade of a fundamental right against compelled self-incrimination. 

Solving this identity crisis in the criminal process is a task beyond our fractious legislatures. What they can do, is take steps to limit the existing systemic incentives for consumers to file police cases and trigger the criminal process only to exert pressure on the other side. Hopefully, tighter and more transparent regulation can help restore some clarity on the larger values that our criminal process subscribes to as well.