Accelerating fair trials

The National Crime Records Bureau, under the aegis of the Ministry of Home Affairs, is the sole authority responsible for releasing data pertaining to prisons, including prison types, demographics of prison inmates, and offense-wise classification, among others. The NCRB released its latest report on December 1, 2023, for the year 2022. It is a 352-page report that provides startling statistics on prisons in India, especially on the subject of undertrial prisoners and detainees. While decoding the same, I will give reasons as to why such a state of affairs prevails.

The supremacy of the "Rule of Law" is the cardinal principle of any democratic society, and the same is articulated in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Still, the NCRB report suggests a contradiction to this principle. 75.8 per cent of prisoners in jail are undertrial prisoners, meaning that more than 3/4th of the total prison capacity is being utilised by undertrial prisoners who are awaiting their trial. Out of these 75.8 per cent undertrial prisoners, a whopping 31 per cent were confined for a period more than a year, sometimes up to 5 years or more. It would be safe to assume here that these included cases where the accused may have done the majority of the maximum punishment. They are in jail frittering away state resources (Rs 7,781.9 crore is the total spent, meaning approximately Rs 5,837 crore on undertrial prisoners), their own time and reputation, and most importantly, the dilution of the principle "innocent until proven guilty."

The more staggering fact is that there is little to no progress on this aspect. If I compare the last three years of NCRB reports (2020, 2021, and 2022), I reckon that undertrial prisoners are only increasing with years passing. So, what is the root cause problem and where are we going wrong? First and foremost is legal aid. Former Chief Justice of India UU Lalit, who also headed the NALSA (National Legal Services Authority) during his tenure, while delivering a lecture on the death penalty, revealed that at least 75 per cent of people actually facing criminal prosecution are below the poverty line, meaning in need of legal aid. Per Contra, legal aid is actually availed by not more than 12 per cent of such people. The gap between 12 per cent to 75 per cent is actually the reason where the arrest happens and further to undertrial prisoner. As Justice VR Krishna Iyer has rightly put, "Legal aid to the poor doesn't mean poor legal aid." To bridge the gap, one must be cautious that it is essential to provide qualitative legal aid, which is also a fundamental right implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Secondly, the role of the prosecutor is imperative and requires utmost sincerity, recognising that they represent the societal cause, aiming to uncover the truth. The practice of unreasonable delay and laches on the part of the prosecutor needs to be deprecated to uphold the fairness doctrine.

Thirdly and importantly, the role of Trial Courts is crucial. Trial courts are the first point of contact in criminal prosecution, serving as torchbearers of the truth who also need to fairly apply the guidelines framed by the Supreme Court. The guidelines on the aspect of bail in Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation, 2021 were continuously overlooked by judges at the trial court. This resulted in a number of appeals being filed at the High Court, subsequently overburdening the constitutional court machinery, for which there is already a guideline by the Supreme Court. This infraction on the part of Trial Courts needs to be deprecated, placing imperatives such as circulating the guidelines to every Trial Court judge.

To sum up, the issue of undertrial prisoners demands a greater degree of attention than it is currently receiving. Collective action on the part of the legal community to provide qualitative legal aid, fairness on the part of the prosecutor, and trial courts incorporating the laws or guidelines laid down by higher courts are a few of the strong recommendations that could potentially decrease the number of undertrial prisoners.

The writer is Faculty, Jindal Global Law School, OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana. Views expressed are personal