If good intention is the criterion, the two-volume report seeking to reform the criminal justice system in the country — which has just been submitted to Union Home Minister L.K. Advani by the Justice Malimath Committee — does extremely well. God knows, a system bogged down by the imperfect practices of over 150 years is badly in need of informed scrutiny and expeditious reform. We have, therefore, every reason to be grateful to the panel.There are broadly three areas of concern. One, the need to tune the philosophical underpinning of the criminal justice system, including the fact that it is weighted in favour of the accused at the expense of the victim of the crime. Two, the need for speedy dispensation of justice. Three, the need to reform the administrative apparatus. There can really be no quarrel with the third imperative. For instance, various commissions had recommended measures to insulate the police force from political influence. Therefore, the panel’s espousal of the old idea of setting up a national security commission and state security commissions to make the police force more autonomous is only to be welcomed. The first and second imperatives are, again, unexceptional. But there can be serious objections to some of the recommendations put forward to achieve them. Indeed, in its anxiety to speed up the administration of justice, the panel has given short shrift to time-tested norms evolved to guard against the miscarriage of justice. Take, for instance, the principle that people cannot be compelled to testify against themselves. The panel recommends empowering the court to question the accused during trial to ‘‘ascertain the truth even if the witness could implicate himself’’. Such an approach is justified in the name of involving the courts to play a pro-active role in the ‘‘search for truth’’. Even though the panel is aware that this could affect the constitutional right of the accused to be protected against testimonial compulsion, it suggests no remedy against possible violations. Surprisingly, a procedure now part of the draconian Pota also finds its way into the recommendations: confessional statements made before senior police officials to be considered admissible as evidence. This, we regard, as an absolute no-no, given the known propensity of the police to extract confessional statements using unconventional methods. Similarly, it is difficult to agree that the judicial norm of achieving ‘‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’’ be replaced by ‘‘clear and convincing proof’’. This is done ostensibly to reduce the burden on the prosecution. Since the prosecution often does a shoddy job of presenting its case, why must it be rewarded for its inefficiency by such a dilution of standards?Now that the Justice Malimath Committee has done the job, it’s time to take the debate to the people. Some of the issues appear complex but they are of crucial significance to the citizen. As jurists have argued, the exercise of justice should be shared by all, not just state-appointed officials.
