Recently, the Home Minister made an interesting public speech where he reportedly lamented the poor conviction rates. An official report of his comments also notes that the Minister suggested that wholesale changes to the Indian Penal Code of 1860, and Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 were on the cards to help make things better on the conviction front.
This blog has often argued that reforms to these statutes, as well as the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, should occupy the minds of legislators. So to hear that some legislative process might be underway soon is, well, arguably a good thing. But, as we all know, the means are as important as the ends: if the changes end up being little more than an implementation of the draconian "reforms" suggested by the Malimath Committee Report of 2003, then certainly status quo will seem like paradise.
All one can say at this stage is that if a consultation process to amend the Indian criminal process does materialise, as suggested in the reports, then the legal system will certainly benefit if those who care about fixing the bad elements take an active part in the legislative process [a shout out to the good folks at IFF who have taken up this mantle in the sphere of, inter alia, internet policy].
The initial comments about where this reform process might lead can be seen in some observations that the Minister reportedly made about improving the quality of police investigations. He reportedly termed "age-old" investigation techniques involving third-degree methods as "pitiful", and argued that using more forensic science for police investigations will certainly increase convictions.
First Kashmir, now this: Reading these remarks about forensic science and "age-old" investigations made me feel as if everyone in the Government has decided to go back to the 1950s for inspiration about what to do in 2019. For if you go back to the newspapers of the early 1950s, you'll find them replete with editorials and press reports of ministers condemning "third-degree" police practices. At that time as well, the Government made loud noises about "forensic" evidence being a game-changer for policing in India. I discuss this history in a paper, where I also argued that the mere use of forensic science cannot do away with a tendency of police officers to use force: After all, what is stopping the use of brutal force to get the forensic samples.
As we obviously know, the efforts of different governments since 1950 have not led to a significant change in public perceptions of the police from being the "Bully Boys" of the Raj to "Willing Servants" of the Indian people, as David Arnold wonderfully puts it. Is it possible though, that this time things will be different? I don't think so. Leaving aside the point about the use of coercion for implementing forensic science, I think that the recent political and economic trends render it rather unlikely that the modernisation supposedly needed for improving the quality of police investigations can happen any time soon. Two reasons stand out among the many others.
The first is money: India loves to spend on defence, but not on policing, which results in huge staff shortages and poor tools, equipment, and training for investigations. The point about staff shortages is also affecting central agencies, as has been seen with the CBI. Currently, hearings are ongoing before a bench of the Supreme Court in Dilawar Singh where the Court has again expressed anguish about how slow the forensic science processing systems are (again, contributed by labs being understaffed). Thus, when governments do not like to spend on policing in normal times, how can we expect the Central Government to change this trend now, at a time when the economy is reportedly witnessing an unprecedented slowdown and the Government's busy spending to revive the falling demand?
The second reason why the Home Minister's speech is likely to not yield much improvement is a technical one. Policing is a state subject. So, even if we treat the speech as being made in earnest and not an exercise in mere sloganeering, it is still the state governments which will be the key drivers in any push for police reforms. Unless, of course, the Central Government aims some more bulldozers in the direction of the quasi-federal structure of the Indian Constitution and lends aid and expertise to only those states where the government is an ally. Or, maybe it restricts the spending on forensic science to only central agencies like the CBI and the ED. Either way, given that those agencies don't deal with the bulk of prosecutions, it is unlikely to change much in the larger scheme of things.
I honestly don't think this speech is a sign of much increased spending in the near future — the government has already been spending a lot on using more technology for police purposes. But I do think that changes to the Penal Code and Criminal Procedure Code might be part of the legislative agenda in the near future. Keep your eyes and ears peeled.
No comments:
Post a Comment