The Criminal Justice System (CJS) acts as the critical interface between state power and individual liberty. It is not merely a punitive apparatus but a protective shield designed to ensure that the deprivation of liberty is neither arbitrary nor oppressive.
The protection of human rights within the CJS is anchored in the Constitution (the vision), Statutes (the machinery), and Judicial Precedents (the corrective force).
Here is a critical analysis of how the CJS protects human rights, structured through these three lenses.
I. The Constitutional Framework: The “Magna Carta” of Rights
The Indian Constitution does not trust the State blindly. It embeds procedural safeguards directly into the Fundamental Rights chapter to prevent the CJS from becoming a tool of tyranny.
- Article 20: Protects against ex post facto laws (you can’t be punished for a crime that wasn’t a crime when you did it), double jeopardy, and self-incrimination.
- Article 21: The heart of the CJS. It declares that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to “procedure established by law.”
- Article 22: Provides specific rights upon arrest: the right to be informed of grounds, right to a lawyer, and production before a magistrate within 24 hours.
- Article 39A: Directs the State to provide free legal aid, ensuring justice is not denied due to economic disability.
II. Statutory & Judicial Protections (Landmark Case Laws)
An advanced analysis requires us to look at specific stages of the CJS where rights are most vulnerable: Arrest, Investigation, and Trial.
A. Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest & Custodial Torture
The police have the power to arrest, but this power is often abused. The CJS intervenes to prevent “custodial violence,” which is anathema to human dignity.
Landmark Case: D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
- Summary Facts: A letter petition highlighted rising custodial deaths in West Bengal. The Supreme Court treated it as a PIL, noting that custodial torture is a “naked violation of human dignity” and usually happens in secret police station cells.
- Issue: How can the law check the abuse of police power during arrest and detention to prevent custodial deaths?
- Decision: The Court issued the historic “D.K. Basu Guidelines” (now partially codified in the CrPC/BNSS):
- Police personnel must wear accurate, visible name tags.
- An Arrest Memo must be prepared on the spot and attested by a family member.
- The arrestee has the right to inform a friend or relative about their detention.
- The arrestee must be medically examined every 48 hours.
B. The Right to Fair Procedure & “Due Process”
A law cannot just be a “printed rule”; it must be fair. This is the shift from a “formal” legality to “substantive” human rights.
Landmark Case: Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)
- Summary Facts: Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded by the government in “public interest” without giving her a hearing. The government argued that the Passport Act gave them this power, so the “procedure established by law” (Article 21) was followed.
- Issue: Is a procedure valid under Article 21 simply because it is enacted by a statute, even if it is arbitrary or unreasonable?
- Decision: The Supreme Court rejected the government’s narrow view. It held:
- The “procedure” to deprive liberty must be “fair, just, and reasonable,” not fanciful or arbitrary.
- This introduced the concept of Substantive Due Process into Indian law.
- Rights are interconnected: A violation of Article 21 often involves violations of Article 14 (Equality) and Article 19 (Freedoms)—the “Golden Triangle” of rights.
C. The Right to Speedy Trial & Rights of Undertrials
The CJS often fails human rights through delay. Keeping someone in prison for years without a verdict is a violation of liberty.
Landmark Case: Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar (1979)
- Summary Facts: A media report revealed that thousands of undertrials were languishing in Bihar jails for years—some for periods longer than the maximum sentence they would face if convicted.
- Issue: Does the right to a speedy trial exist under Article 21? Can poverty be a ground for indefinite detention (inability to pay bail)?
- Decision: Justice P.N. Bhagwati ruled:
- Right to Speedy Trial is an integral part of Article 21.
- The State cannot cite “financial or administrative constraints” to deny this right.
- It ordered the release of all undertrials who had already served the maximum term for their alleged offenses.
D. Protection Against Self-Incrimination
The CJS protects the accused’s mental autonomy. The State cannot force a person to be a witness against themselves.
Landmark Case: Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani (1978)
- Summary Facts: A former Chief Minister was interrogated by the police regarding corruption charges. She was given a long list of questions and insisted on her right to silence. The police charged her with refusing to answer public servants.
- Issue: Does Article 20(3) (Right against self-incrimination) apply only during trial, or also during police interrogation?
- Decision:
- The protection of Article 20(3) extends to police interrogations.
- An accused has the right to remain silent if the answer would expose them to a criminal charge.
- “Compulsive testimony” is prohibited; police cannot use psychological pressure to extract answers.
III. Statutory Safeguards (The “Black Letter” Law)
While case laws provide the spirit, statutes provide the mechanics.
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) / BNSS (2023):
- Section 57 CrPC (Sec 58 BNSS): Police cannot detain a person for more than 24 hours without a Magistrate’s order. This prevents “disappearances.”
- Section 167 CrPC (Sec 187 BNSS): Default Bail. If the police fail to file a charge sheet within 60/90 days, the accused has an indefeasible right to bail.
- Evidence Act / BSA (2023):
- Confessions to Police: Are generally inadmissible (Section 25 Evidence Act / Sec 23 BSA). This statutory rule is a direct check on police torture, assuming that confessions made in custody are likely coerced.
From a jurisprudential standpoint, the Criminal Justice System acts as a seismograph for a nation’s human rights health.
While the black letter law (Statutes) provides the machinery of justice, it is the constitutional spirit (via Case Law) that breathes life into it. The journey from A.K. Gopalan (where the Court barely looked at due process) to Maneka Gandhi (where fairness became paramount) represents the evolution of the CJS from a tool of control to a guardian of dignity.
the ultimate lesson is this: The Rule of Law does not exist to protect the criminal from the State; it exists to protect the humanity within the State from its own worst impulses. When the CJS functions correctly, it vindicates the rights of the victim without stripping the accused of their personhood—a delicate, yet non-negotiable, balance.
I. Recent Challenges to Human Rights in CJS
The modern CJS is grappling with a tension between “efficiency” (speedy disposal, crime control) and “liberty” (due process).
1. The “New Criminal Laws” Dilemma (BNSS, 2023)
The transition from the colonial CrPC to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has introduced significant debates regarding personal liberty.
- Police Custody Duration: Under the old CrPC, police custody was generally limited to the first 15 days. Section 187 of the BNSS allows the 15-day police custody to be spread over the first 40 or 60 days.
- Human Rights Concern: This may leave the accused vulnerable to police pressure for a longer duration, potentially complicating bail applications during this initial period.
- Use of Handcuffs: While the Supreme Court (in Prem Shankar Shukla) curbed the use of handcuffs to prevent humiliation, Section 43 of BNSS allows handcuffs for “habitual offenders” or grave crimes.
- Challenge: The definition of who constitutes a “habitual offender” before conviction can be subjective, risking the return of degrading treatment.
2. The “Digital Rights” & Privacy Crisis
As the CJS digitizes, the Right to Privacy (Puttaswamy judgement) faces new threats.
- Data Seizure: Investigating agencies routinely seize electronic devices (phones/laptops) without specific guidelines on hashing or cloning.
- Impact: This exposes the entire private life of an individual—financials, personal chats, photos—to the state, far exceeding the scope of the alleged crime.
- Surveillance: The use of facial recognition technology in policing often lacks statutory oversight, raising concerns about mass surveillance and profiling.
3. The Crisis of Undertrials & Overcrowding
Despite the Hussainara Khatoon judgment, Indian prisons remain overcrowded, often operating at 130%+ capacity (NCRB Data).
- The Statistic: Over 75% of prisoners are undertrials (not yet convicted).
- The Reality: Poor prisoners often languish in jail simply because they cannot afford surety for bail, effectively serving a sentence without a conviction.
4. Extra-Legal Punitive Measures
A disturbing trend of “instant justice” challenges the Rule of Law.
- “Bulldozer Justice”: The demolition of properties belonging to accused persons before conviction circumvents the judicial process. It imposes collective punishment on the family and violates the Right to Shelter.
II. Suggestions for Reform (The Way Forward)
To uphold human rights, the CJS must evolve from a punitive model to a restorative and rehabilitative one.
1. Implementation of “Remand Lawyers”
- Concept: A defense lawyer should be stationed at every police station or magistrate court to represent the accused at the moment of first production.
- Impact: This ensures the Miranda right (Right to Counsel) is real, not theoretical, preventing coerced confessions and unnecessary remand.
2. Decoupling Investigation from Law Enforcement
- Recommendation: As suggested by the Malimath Committee and the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh, the “Investigating Wing” of the police should be separate from the “Law and Order Wing.”
- Why? Overburdened police officers cannot investigate scientifically. Separation ensures dedicated, skilled investigators who rely on forensics rather than “third-degree” methods.
3. Technological Safeguards (The “Digital Due Process”)
- Hash Value Mandatory: When a device is seized, its “Hash Value” (digital fingerprint) must be provided to the accused immediately to ensure evidence is not planted or tampered with later.
- Body Cameras: Mandatory body-worn cameras for police officers during arrests and interrogations to create an objective record and deter custodial violence.
4. Institutionalizing “Bail as the Rule”
- Bail Reform: We need a specific “Bail Act” (as suggested by the Supreme Court) that standardizes bail conditions, reducing the discretion that often leads to bias against the poor.
- Release of Undertrials: Automatic release mechanisms for undertrials who have served half the maximum sentence (Section 479 BNSS) need to be executed proactively by Prison authorities, not waited upon by lawyers.
5. Victim Protection & Restorative Justice
- Witness Protection Scheme: Cases often fail because witnesses are threatened. A statutory, well-funded witness protection program is essential for a fair trial.
- Victim Compensation: The focus must shift to compensating the victim rather than just punishing the offender. The BNSS has made progress here, but the disbursement needs to be swifter.
Conclusion
As an aspiring human rights defender, I argue that the metric of a successful Criminal Justice System is not the severity of its punishments, but the certainty and fairness of its process. We must advocate for a system where technology aids truth, not surveillance, and where prisons are centers of reformation, not warehouses of the forgotten.
