Coercive Investigations - New Limits?

This Blog has been on its annual vacation hiatus, and in that time precious little seems to have been going on in the realm of criminal law and evidence in India. One proposed change that was floated in this time was the Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill 2017. The Finance Ministry released a draft for comments in May and it is likely that some version of the Bill will be presented for consideration in the upcoming session of the Indian parliament. If passed, the law would empower authorities to seize and confiscate the properties of persons involved in financial crimes of large value (this is pegged in the Draft Bill at 100 Crore Rupees or above). 

This forfeiture of properties will trigger if one does not appear before investigative authorities within a specified time period after warrants / summons have been issued seeking her cooperation. So, effectively, it authorises an additional method of coercing the persons who will potentially become 'Accused' to cooperate with investigations. This post covers some ground on exploring the limits of this strategy. Like most issues having a policy element, I am afraid the contours of the post and the argument will remain hazy, and request the reader to bear with this constraint.

Criminal Law, Coercion, and the Accused

Historically, it was not unnatural for criminal justice to follow a policy of "punish now, prove later". Confessions carried an unrivalled evidentiary quality, and also signified spiritual repentance, and thus it was quite regular to subject the Accused to physical pain to this end. Foucault does not discuss coercion by forfeiture of property in  Discipline and Punish, but considering the historical analysis by Professor Levy in License to Steal, it seems forfeiture through Deodands was not used for this aim.

The 19th Century reformation of penal systems across Europe resulted in redrawing the ideas of the acceptable limits of coercion that persons could be subjected to in the criminal process. In large measure, this was because from the Accused became a subject and participant in the process from merely being the object upon which responsibility for an incident was fastened. Physical pain did not magically disappear, of course, but it became possible to question the validity of evidence secured through these means since an Accused also had rights and some legal representation (although it would take more time for an Accused to be allowed to depose as a witness). 

Through the 19th Century, then, we find different jurisdictions draw several limits at the involvement of an Accused person based on the idea of the Accused as a willing participant in the process (but, as Foucault suggests, the wrongfulness of using pain to prove guilt was not eliminated but regulated through the codification exercises). History then lends us fresh perspective for reading the criminal procedure and evidence codes of today. Think of the Accused as being at the heart of a process, as an individual with full-bodied rights in society. The criminal process then regulates how those rights are chipped off to serve the interests of law enforcement. Perusing the Indian codes, one basic conclusion would seem that the law does not wish to support the logic that lets punishment precede guilt. Indeed, the codes make it prohibitive to force the Accused to prove anything beyond un-contestable evidence of a comparable nature such as bodily samples. 

I argue that this shift in focus, from the Accused being an object to a subject and participant affirming the legality of the criminal process, is what explains the law continuing to invest maximum coercive power for ensuring the presence of an Accused. While the law can pass judgment on fugitives and find them guilty, the absence of a subject naturally places the legitimacy of the process under doubt. It denies society the chance to express opprobrium and subject an individual to sanction, which remains (theoretically at least) the most important feature of the criminal process. Ensuring that an accused is present, therefore, is of paramount importance. This is why the law authorises pre-trial detention in such cases, a measure of the highest severity reserved for those found guilty at the end of trial. Which is why it also authorises forfeiture of property, which is what we move to next.

The Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill - A Step Too Far?

All of what I have argued above supports the logic behind the draft Fugitive Economic Offenders Bill 2017 that was circulated. The current system in the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ups the ante against persons wilfully avoiding the course of law by anointing them 'Proclaimed Offenders' and attaching their property [Sections 82, 83 Cr.P.C.]. Property serves as a substitute for the person, and the inability to deal in property is sought to coerce fugitives from participating in the criminal process. Unfortunately, the Proclaimed Offender process is far too time-consuming to be of any material benefit, where proclamations tend to take at least a year and then there is the added difficulty of enforcing the attachment order. Therefore, a Bill seeking to hasten this process for ensuring the presence of persons would certainly have rule of law benefits.

But at what cost? This is where the cracks appear in the Government proposals. The Draft Bill does not stop at attaching properties - i.e. preventing persons from dealing with them till they appear. It authorises confiscation - not appearing means your property can and will be sold - which will happen at the end of six weeks. And confiscation not only of properties that one allegedly acquired from fraudulent activities, but any property located in India. Can the Government utilise the rule of law logic to justify these drastic means? There are no simple answers, of course. Especially given what we are told about the role of certain individuals and companies in the current banking crisis that has gripped the country. My position is that this Bill is, nonetheless, beyond the acceptable limits of coercion in criminal investigations. The link drawn between the allegations and nature of properties seized and confiscated certainly suggests a harking back to "punish now, prove later" regime that had been condemned. Remember that this is the investigation stage - the judge has little basis to second-guess what the police represent as their case and nor are judges expected to second-guess too much at this stage. Moreover, placing such importance on the Accused during investigations seems to ignore the movement of law in the direction of decreasing this importance for proving guilt. After all, even if a person was to be apprehended using this process, the law clothes her with enough protection to remain silent throughout custody placing the value addition to the government case at nearly nothing.

Conclusions

It is not that there are no alternatives. The Government could perhaps initiate civil in rem actions the properties themselves and then forfeit them, a common (and controversial) practice in the US. It could also, perhaps, speed up the trial itself and then forfeit the assets if it secures a conviction. Or it could do nothing and resort to the very broad (and hyper-active) PMLA regime which could cover most of these situations already. Each of these alternatives would, in fact, be more effective than the current proposal which would achieve little more than good publicity and public catharsis at seeing the big-bad affluent person being in the clutches of law. 

Aircel-Maxis, International Law and Judicial Restraint

A Three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court today passed this six page long order in an application filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation which sought directions in the Aircel-Maxis case. The order made headlines in India (Hindu, Business-Standard, NDTV, Indian Express) with extracts of the terse observations in the order being carried. Most of these are focused on the conclusions in paragraph 10 that the sale of spectrum remains stayed. As I explore in this post, the Order is extremely troubling, illegal, contrary to national and international law, and yet another instance of the White Knight complex that many people have so often written about.

What's the case about and Why was there a Petition in the Supreme Court?

Not so long ago in 2012, the corruption scandal surrounding allocation of 2-G spectrum arrived on the scene and refuses to leave. Investigations are still on-going and are linking supplementary sales of spectrum to be part of the initial scam that allegedly involved Shahid Balwa, Sanjay Chandra, A. Raja and the like. One of these linked cases concerns the sale of spectrum by Aircel to Maxis in 2006. The CBI has alleged that this sale was vitiated by corruption and has filed a chargesheet against Dayanidhi Maran (the then Minister for Communications), Aircel, Maxis, and the responsible officers of these companies. The case is currently pending at the stage of charge before the Special Court hearing 2-G Scam cases in Patiala House, New Delhi. 

The 2-G Scam petition itself was filed in 2010 and continues to be pending. This Application - filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation - sought directions to prevent the sale of spectrum by Aircel-Maxis that was said to be on the cards. The Application stated (as per news reports) that allowing the sale would mean the accused persons would profit despite not appearing before the courts despite summons having been issued against them [This Blog had earlier discussed the issue of summoning foreign entities here].

The Order Passed Today

The news media reports on proceedings as they happen inside court and often differ from the eventual order that is published for proceedings online. Something like this seems to have happened here as well, but not to a great extent. Naturally, all that matters is what is in the order itself. 

The Court notes the background:

3. The predicament expressed in I.A.No.82/2016, and the eventual prayer made therein, emerges on account of non-service of summons on Mr. Ananda Krishna Tatparanandam (Accused No.iv) and M/s. Maxis Communications, Berhad, Malaysia (Accused No.vii), and the other accused referred to above (Accused No.iii and vi). 

4. In so far as, the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, the factual position depicted in the reply affidavit, filed on behalf of the Central Bureau of Investigation, reveals as under : “21. That on 31.08.2016, a letter was received by the Ld. Special judge from the Attorney General's Chambers, Malaysia, dated 17.08.2016, inter alia stating that upon consideration of the facts disclosed in the Request for Assistance and further clarifications supplied by the CBI, the requirements as per the provisions under section 20(1)(f) of the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2002 [Act 621] were not fulfilled, and hence the requests to serve the summons could not be acceded to.” 

So, the Malaysia-based accused persons (not Indian) had not appeared in court due to non-service of summons. In cases like this, when investigation requires processes to happen in another country, we resort to Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties. India and Malaysia have one such Treaty, and the service of summons etc. would have to comply with this in order for summons to be served. If not, the recipient country is under no obligation to enforce service of summons. The Malaysian Act of 2002 referred to is the Malaysian domestic law on how to treat requests by Treaty states for assistance in criminal matters. Section 20 specifies when assistance is to be refused by the Attorney General, and 20(1)(f) states that the request for assistance shall be refused if the Attorney General is of the opinion that "the request relates to the investigation, prosecution or punishment of a person in respect of an act or omission that, if it had occurred in Malaysia, would not have constituted an offence against the laws of Malaysia". Paragraph 4 extracted above shows that non-compliance with this provision is what prevented the service of summons rather than the accused persons wilfully avoiding the process of law. Basically, it shows that the CBI is yet to satisfy the Malaysian Attorney General's office that the acts/omissions alleged are also crimes under Malaysian law.  

In the next paragraph, the Court notes:

5. It is imperative to ensure, in our considered view, that the process of law should not be permitted to be frustrated by non-service of summons to the accused. In order to enforce the presence of accused ... we propose to restrain, earning of any revenue, by using the 2G Spectrum licenses, which were originally granted to M/s Aircel Communications ...

The Court has permitted the accused to make representations before the Special Court (paragraph 8), and has instructed the Union of India to ensure publication of this order in two leading Malaysian newspapers (paragraph 9). Starkly, the Court states that "it will not be open to any of the accused, to raise an objection with reference to any monetary loss, emerging out of the proposed order."  

And All That is Wrong With it

A non-sequitur if there ever was one. That, in short, sums up what has happened here. After all, how else can one explain the Court noting in paragraph 4 that the non-service of summons is due to a failure on part of the Union to fulfil the requirements of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, and then moving on to squarely placing the blame on the accused persons for their fault of residing abroad.

The Court seems to have conflated the domestic methods of ensuring service of summons as provided under Chapter VI of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 [Cr.P.C.] with such process as applicable under international law which are covered in Chapter VII. This is apparent with the Court suggesting publication in Malaysian newspapers as if it were dealing with an issue of proclamations for absconders under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. If we go a bit further and see Section 105 Cr.P.C., it provides for the specific manner in which this service of summons must happen. 

Now, someone may argue that Article 142 allows the Supreme Court to do nearly anything it wishes so why not this? Well, while I strongly resist that submission itself and argue that nothing in Article 142 allows the Court to transgress existing statutory law, that still does not justify the violation of International Law. Adopting this ad-hoc method for serving summons and processes would violate India's obligations under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty with Malaysia. Action taken pursuant to these orders by the Indian authorities would be open to challenge, though I am not an expert on what shape that challenge may take. 

I still cannot understand the conclusions that the Court arrives at. But if we return to the idea that the judiciary has been burdened with expectations of cleaning up the system of corruption (White Knight complex), it definitely makes sense. So what if the Executive is proving unable to comply with the law? Or, in case of the National Anthem Order, what if the Executive wants to do something but is fettered by the law. The Judiciary seems to suggest that it is willing to go ahead and change the law itself, all for the cause of Justice. One interim order at a time - but please, no final judgments.

[this post was updated on 7 January to add the portions on the Malaysian Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act of 2002]

Section 82 CrPC and Proclaimed Offenders

This post highlights what seems to be an anomaly in the procedure under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 [Cr.P.C.] for compelling the appearance of persons before court. But before coming to the issue itself, its necessary to explain the general scheme of securing the attendance of persons under the Code.

Summons, Warrants and their Compliance

How does the court secure the presence of persons before it? Chapter VI of the Cr.P.C. explains this procedure in detail, telling us that there are either (a) summons or (b) warrants of arrest, that may be issued by a Court to ensure a person is present before it. Although the Code does not provide for a distinction, in practice two kinds of warrants may be issued, (i) bailable warrants and (ii) non-bailable warrants. The Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1] provided some guidelines on how this discretion vested with a court may be exercised.

If summons were sent to X and she failed to comply without tendering any explanation, a warrant may be issued for her arrest [See, Section 87 Cr.P.C., which enables a warrant to be issued even where summons have not been sent]. But what happens when despite a warrant being issued, a person fails to appear before the Court? If the court has reason to believe that the person is deliberately avoiding the warrant, Section 82(1) empowers the court to publish written proclamations [in accordance with Section 82(2)] requiring her to appear before court on a specified place and time. But what if, despite the proclamation, the person fails to appear?

Of Proclaimed Persons and Proclaimed Offenders

Section 82(4) was inserted in 2006 to state that failure to appear after a proclamation entitles a court to pronounce the person a "Proclaimed Offender" and make a declaration to that effect. Importantly though, 82(4) is limited to proclamations in respect of persons accused of offences punishable under Sections 302, 304, 364, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code. The consequences of a proclamation are twofold. One, a proclamation triggers Section 83 Cr.P.C., enabling a court to attach any property belonging to the proclaimed person which may be sold upon continued absence. Two, Section 174-A of the IPC (also inserted in 2006 by the same amending statute) makes it an offence to not appear following proclamations under Section 82 Cr.P.C. In 174-A IPC a distinction was made: disobeying a Section 82(1) proclamation was punishable with imprisonment upto 3 years or fine or both, but where a declaration under Section 82(4) was made a person could be punished with imprisonment upto 7 years with a mandatory fine. 

The History behind the Text

The notion of a Proclaimed Offender as it exists today did not always find a place in the Code. in the 1872 Code, there was no mention of a Proclaimed Offender. It was in Section 45 of the 1882 Code that the words were first found, only in respect of the duties of village officers to make a report. In 1894 an explanation clause was added to Section 45 thereby expanding the definition of Proclaimed Offender. This was the first instance when the list of sections currently found in Section 82(4) found a place in the Code. The 1898 Code retained the provisions of Section 45 with respect to Proclaimed Offenders in its amended form, which today is provisions of Section 40 of the Cr.P.C. 1973.

Why was the definition of Proclaimed Offender expanded in 1894? The clause expanding the definition was in fact one in a set of identical clauses inserted that to iron out jurisdictional issues which were faced by the Crown in prosecutions of certain offences. This is clear by reading the full clause:

"the expression proclaimed offender includes any person proclaimed as an offender by any court or authority in any territory in India to which this Code does not extend, in respect of any act which if committed in the territories to which this Code extends, would be an offence punishable with under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, 302, 304, 364, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 (both inclusive)"

Through history, we understand why it was necessary to amend the law in 1894 to insert the clause with this specific list of sections. Since the Cr.P.C. does not extend to all parts of India, it made sense to retain it post independence. But why was this list of sections specifically inserted in Section 82? For that, I found no answer. Although the proposal was seemingly made in the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill of 1994 and included in a questionnaire prepared by the Law Commission, there is no discussion in the Report. These offences cannot be considered exhaustive of the set of grave offences under the IPC to argue that they merit a separate class. All facts seem to suggest that this list of offences is rather arbitrarily placed under Section 82(4) Cr.P.C.

Dealing with the Current Position
For reasons we cannot gather, Section 82 today creates two separate classes of proclamations: those for persons accused of offences specified under Section 82(4), and all other proclamations. This is supplemented by Section 174-A IPC, which reiterates that a higher punishment may be inflicted upon those declared Proclaimed Offenders under 82(4). There is no such declaration for disobeying the other proclamations issued under Section 82(1), which brings us to the issue at hand. Can persons other than those accused of offences listed under Section 82(4) be declared Proclaimed Offenders? The absence of any declarations outside of Section 82(4) was considered a problem by the Punjab & Haryana High Court, and in a lengthy decision [Deeksha Puri v. State of Haryana, Crl.M.C. 359/2012 decided on 16.10.2012] it concluded that the apparent labeling lacuna must be resolved by calling any persons disobeying a proclamation a Proclaimed Offender.

I disagree with the High Court on two points. First, the absence of a declaration for 82(1) Cr.P.C. does not create any real problem as is evident from the declaration mechanism being entirely absent from the Code until 2006. Second, even if there is a problem of labeling, the High Court arrived at solution by effectively rewriting the plain text of the statute which is contrary to settled principles of interpretation. Rather than proactively amend the law, its better to stick to the plain text and follow the procedure which follows, i.e. restrict declarations of Proclaimed Offender to only those cases outlined under Section 82(4). As I often conclude though, an amendment would indeed be ideal.

My thanks to Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Advocate and Ms. Shweta V., undergraduate student at NUALS, Kochi for their inputs and assistance