💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Executive & Judiciary

  • [pib] Fast Track Special Courts

    The Union Cabinet has approved the continuation of 1023 Fast Track Special Court (FTSCs) including 389 exclusive POCSO Courts for two more years.

    Fast Track Special Courts

    • Fast Track Special Courts are dedicated courts expected to ensure swift dispensation of justice.
    • They have a better clearance rate as compared to the regular courts and hold speedy trials.
    • Besides providing quick justice to the hapless victims, it strengthens the deterrence framework for sexual offenders.
    • Central Share is to be funded from Nirbhaya Fund. The Scheme was launched on 02.10.2019.
    • To bring more stringent provisions and expeditious trial and disposal of such cases, the Central Government enacted “The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018”.
    • It made provision of stringent punishment including the death penalty for perpetrators of rape.
    • This led to the establishment of the Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs).

     Note: Article 247 gives power to Parliament to establish certain additional courts for the better administration of laws made by it or of any existing laws with respect to a matter enumerated in the Union List.

    Benefits offered by fast track courts

    • Further the commitment of the Nation to champion the cause of safety and security of women and girl child.
    • Reduce the number of pending cases of Rape & POCSO Act.
    • Provide speedy access to justice to the victims of sexual crimes and act as a deterrent for sexual offenders.
    • Fastracking of these cases will declog the judicial system of the burden of case pendency.

  • Governors can pardon death row: Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has held that the Governor of a State can pardon prisoners, including death row ones, even before they have served a minimum of 14 years of a prison sentence.

    SC Judgement: Section 433-A CrPC

    • The Governor’s power to pardon overrides a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure — Section 433A.
    • This article mandates that a prisoner’s sentence can be remitted only after 14 years of jail.
    • Such power is in the exercise of the power of the sovereign, though the Governor is bound to act on the aid and advice of the State Government, the apex court observed.
    • Section 433-A of the Code cannot and does not in any way affect the constitutional power conferred on the President/Governor to grant pardon under Articles 72 or 161 of the Constitution.

    What does one mean by Pardon?

    • A pardon is a government/executive decision to allow a person to be absolved of guilt for an alleged crime or other legal offense as if the act never occurred.

    Why need Pardon?

    • Pardons can be granted when individuals are deemed to have demonstrated that they have “paid their debt to society”, or are otherwise considered to be deserving of them.
    • Pardons are sometimes offered to persons who were either wrongfully convicted or who claim that they were wrongfully convicted.
    • Pardons are sometimes seen as a mechanism for combating corruption, allowing a particular authority to circumvent a flawed judicial process to free someone that is seen as wrongly convicted.

    Pardoning powers in India

    • Under the Constitution of India (Article 72), the President of India can grant a pardon or reduce the sentence of a convicted person, particularly in cases involving capital punishment.
    • A similar and parallel power vests in the governors of each state under Article 161.

    [I] President

    1. Article 72 says that the president shall have the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offense.
    2. The pardoning powers of the Indian President are elucidated in Art 72 of the Indian Constitution. There are five different types of pardoning that are mandated by law.
    • Pardon: means completely absolving the person of the crime and letting him go free. The pardoned criminal will be like a normal citizen.
    • Commutation: means changing the type of punishment given to the guilty into a less harsh one, for example, a death penalty commuted to a life sentence.
    • Reprieve: means a delay allowed in the execution of a sentence, usually a death sentence, for a guilty person to allow him some time to apply for Presidential Pardon or some other legal remedy to prove his innocence or successful rehabilitation.
    • Respite: means reducing the quantum or degree of the punishment to a criminal in view of some special circumstances, like pregnancy, mental condition etc.
    • Remission: means changing the quantum of the punishment without changing its nature, for example reducing twenty-year rigorous imprisonment to ten years.

    Cases as specified by art. 72

    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is by a court-martial;
    • in all cases where the punishment or sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends;
    • in all cases where the sentence is a sentence of death.

    [II] Governor

    • Similarly, as per article 161: Governor of a State has the power to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute the sentence of any person convicted of any offence against any law.
    • It must be relating to a matter to which the executive power of the state extends.
    • President can grant pardon to a person awarded a death sentence. But a governor of a state does not enjoy this power.

    Nature of the Pardoning Power

    • Not absolute: The question is whether this power to grant pardon is absolute or this power of pardon shall be exercised by the President on the advice of Council of Ministers.
    • Aid and advice: The pardoning power of the president is not absolute. It is governed by the advice of the Council of Ministers.
    • Constitution is silent on this: This has not been discussed by the constitution but is the practical truth. Further, it does not provide for any mechanism to question the legality of decisions of President or governors exercising mercy jurisdiction.
    • Judicial review applicable: But the SC in Epuru Sudhakar case has given a small window for judicial review of the pardon powers of President and governors for the purpose of ruling out any arbitrariness.

    Some traditions

    • It is important to note that India has a unitary legal system and there is no separate body of state law.
    • All crimes are crimes against the Union of India.
    • Therefore, a convention has developed that the governor’s powers are exercised for only minor offenses.
    • While requests for pardons and reprieves for major offenses and offenses committed in the UTs are deferred to the President.

  • Surveillance and human rights

    Context

    The Pegasus revelations reflect an attack on Indian democracy and Indian citizens.

    Role of government in protecting the fundamental and human rights of citizens

    • The surveillance of the target group in India through Pegasus raises doubts about the functioning of democracy in India.
    • Constitutional duty of government: The government has a constitutional duty to protect the fundamental and human rights of its citizens, irrespective of who they are.
    • There is clear evidence that the rule of law has been undermined.
    • More evidently, this reflects extremely poor governance.
    • The Intelligence Bureau, the Research and Analysis Wing, and the National Security Council Secretariat should have forewarned the government and citizens against such surveillance seriously violating privacy and fundamental rights.
    • The Supreme Court, in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), declared privacy a constitutionally protected value.

    Violation of human rights

    • India is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    • Article 12 provides that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence.
    • The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also signed by India, in Article 17 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.”
    • In K.S. Puttaswamy, the Supreme Court noted India’s commitments under international law and held that by virtue of Article 51 of the Constitution, India has to endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…”
    • The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 is a fallout of this commitment.

    Recommendations on digital communication technologies

    • The annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR) in 2014 made recommendations on “digital communications technologies”.
    • Judicial oversight: The UNHCHR report stated, judicial involvement that meets international standards can help to make it more likely that the overall statutory regime will meet the minimum standards that international human rights law requires.
    • At the same time, the report stated that judicial involvement in oversight should not be viewed as a panacea.
    • Independent body: The report also recommended an independent oversight body to keep checks.
    • Effective remedy to victim: The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires states parties to ensure that victims of violations of the Covenant have an effective remedy.
    • Role of business: The report also dealt with the role of businesses and stated that when a state requires that an information and communications technology company provide user data, it can only supply it in respect of legitimate reasons.
    • Earlier, due to concerns of member states, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 68/167 affirming that rights held by people offline must also be protected online.
    • The resolution also called upon all states to respect and protect the right to privacy, including in digital communication.

    Conclusion

    Indians have a right to call upon NSO to terminate the agreement, if any, with the Indian government or any private player and to cooperate with citizens to unravel the truth.

  • India at 75 is ready for a sedition-less future

    Context

    Chief Justice of India N V Ramana has ignited a passionate debate during a preliminary hearing concerning whether “sedition” should be an offence at all, and how to prevent its misuse or abuse, were it to remain

    Issues with the sedition under Section 124A

    • Against fundamental right: The meandering meanings of expressions such as “disaffection” towards the government, “hatred”, “contempt” etc. constitute an unreasonable restriction on the fundamental right to free expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).
    • Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the authors of the amended Article 19(2) included “sedition” as a ground for “reasonable restriction” to freedom of speech and expression.
    • Colonial past: CJI Ramana in preliminary hearings has pointedly asked the Attorney General whether “sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code is still required after 75 years of independence from colonial rule.
    • Prone to misuse: The lack of definition of terms used in the section leaves vide the scope for interpretation and thus rampant misuse and abuse.

    Way forward

    • Some law luminaries have found new stirrings of hope in the Supreme Court to strike it down.
    • Find means to prevent misuse and abuse: Alternative way,as the learned attorney general observed is to find constitutional ways and practical means to prevent the abuse and misuse of law.
    • Forbid rampant private complaints:  A most immediate step is to forbid rampant private complaints by citizens and authorise only very senior police officials to take appropriate action.

    Conclusion

    What Gandhiji said — the law may not be used to “manufacture affection” under pain of a penal sanction — was as true then as it remains now. It is high time to realise that the law of “sedition” must go, even when it may strictly not even exist!

  • Supreme Court strikes down part of Constitution Amendment on cooperative societies

    Context

    In Union of India vs Rajendra N. Shah, the Supreme Court of India partially struck down the 97th Constitutional Amendment.

    Background of the 97th Constitutional Amendment

    • The 97th Constitutional Amendment came into effect from February 15 2012.
    • The amendment added “cooperative societies” to the protected forms of association under Article 19(1)(c), elevating it to a fundamental right.
    • It also inserted Part IXB in the Constitution which laid down the terms by which cooperative societies would be governed, in more granular detail than was palatable.

    Why was the Amendment struck down?

    • The Constitution can be amended only by the procedure provided in Article 368.
    • The amendment procedure requires a majority of the total strength of each of the Houses of Parliament and two-thirds majority of those present and voting.
    • A proviso to the Article lists out some articles and chapters of the Constitution, which can be amended only by a special procedure.
    • The special procedure requires that the amendment will also have to be ratified by the legislatures of half of the States.
    • It is precisely on the grounds of violation of this additional requirement that the 97th Constitutional Amendment was challenged.
    • The Gujarat High Court struck down the amendment in 2013 on the grounds that it had failed to comply with the requirements under Article 368(2) by virtue of not having been ratified by the States and had also given an additional finding that the 97th Amendment violated the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The Union Government challenged the Gujarat High Court judgment before the Supreme Court, arguing that the amendment neither directly nor effectively changed the scheme of distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
    • The court took the example of the 73rd and 74th Amendments which were similar in impact on the legislative power of the States, had been passed by the special procedure involving ratification by State legislatures.
    • Procedural lacuna: The court noted that the procedure had not been followed in this case.
    • The Supreme Court clarified that the does not go into the question of the amendment being violative of the basic structure of the Constitution.
    • The judgment makes a distinction between cooperative societies operating in one State and multi-State cooperative societies and holds that while a ratification by half the State legislatures would have been necessary insofar as it applies to cooperative societies in one State.

    Increasing control of the Union government

    • Union government has been acquiring incrementally greater control of cooperative societies over the years.
    • Cooperative banks have been brought under the purview of the Reserve Bank of India.
    • Union Government recently established Union Ministry for Cooperation.

    Issues with Central control over cooperative sector

    • Domain of States: The idea that the cooperative sector ought to be controlled at the State level and not at the central or Union level goes back all the way to the Government of India Act, 1919 which placed cooperatives in the provincial list.
    • Part of State list: Entry 32 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution confer power on the State legislatures to make laws pertaining to incorporation, regulation and the winding up of cooperative societies.
    • The cooperative sector has always been in the domain of the States or provinces.
    • Different organising principles: The organising principles and mechanism of these cooperatives differ from area to area and depend on the industry or crop which forms the fulcrum of the cooperative.
    • Homogeneity nor require: Homogeneity in this area would only result in the creation of round holes in which square pegs no longer fit.
    • They also would not really serve to break the control some political interests have taken over cooperatives.

    Conclusion

    It is best that the Government takes this judgment in the right spirit and stays away from further meddling in the cooperative sector, notwithstanding the creation of the new Ministry.

  • Emigration Bill 2021 does not go far enough

    Context

    The Emigration Bill 2021 could be introduced in Parliament soon and presents a long-overdue opportunity to reform the recruitment process for nationals seeking employment abroad.

    An overview of Emigration Act 1983

    • Labour migration is governed by the Emigration Act, 1983.
    • The Act sets up a mechanism for hiring through government-certified recruiting agents — individuals or public or private agencies.
    • It outlines obligations for agents to conduct due diligence of prospective employers,
    • Sets up a cap on service fees.
    • Establishes a government review of worker travel and employment documents (known as emigration clearances) to 18 countries mainly in West Asian states and South-East Asian countries.

    What are the improvements in Emigration Bill 2021?

    • It launches a new emigration policy division.
    • It establishes help desks and welfare committees.
    • It requires manpower agencies to conduct pre-departure briefings for migrants.
    • It increases accountability of brokers and other intermediaries who are also involved in labour hiring.

    Shortcoming in Emigration Bill 2021

    • Lacks human rights framework: The 2021 Bill lacks a human rights framework aimed at securing the rights of migrants and their families.
    • For example, in a country such as the Philippines, it explicitly recognises the contributions of Filipino workers and “the dignity and fundamental human rights and freedoms of the Filipino citizens”.
    • Workers to bear recruitment payments and service charges: the Bill permits manpower agencies to charge workers’ service fees, and even allows agents to set their own limits.
    • This provision goes against International Labour Organization (ILO) Private Employment Agencies Convention No. 181 and the ILO general principles and operational guidelines for fair recruitment.
    • The ILO Convention and guidelines recognises that it is employers, not workers who should bear recruitment payments including the costs of their visas, air travel, medical exams, and service charges to recruiters.
    • Criminalise worker: The Bill permits government authorities to punish workers by cancelling or suspending their passports and imposing fines up to ₹50,000 for violating any of the Bill’s provisions.
    • Criminalising the choices migrant workers make is deplorable, runs contradictory to the purpose of protecting migrants and their families, and violates international human rights standards.
    •  Recruiters and public officials could misuse the law to instil fear among workers and report or threaten to report them.
    • Gender dimension not adequadely addressed: This Bill does not also adequately reflect the gender dimensions of labour migration where women have limited agency in recruitment compared to their counterparts.
    • Women are more likely to be employed in marginalised and informal sectors and/or isolated occupations in which labour, physical, psychological, and sexual abuse are common.
    • Limited space for representation: The Bill also provides limited space for worker representation or civil society engagement in the policy and welfare bodies that it sets up.

    Way forward

    • The Ministry of External Affairs must start at the top, and draft a clearer purpose which explicitly recognises the contributions of Indian workers, the unique challenges they face, and uphold the dignity and human rights of migrants and their families.

    Conclusion

    The new Bill is better than the Emigration Act 1983, but more reforms are needed to protect Indian workers.

  • Biocentric jurisprudence for nature

    Context

    In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has sought to move away from an anthropocentric basis of law.

    Biocentrism Vs. Anthropocentrism

    • Anthropocentrism argues that of all the species on earth humans are the most significant and that all other resources on earth may be justifiably exploited for the benefit of human beings.
    • The philosophy of biocentrism holds that the natural environment has its own set of rights which is independent of its ability to be exploited by or to be useful to humans.
    • Biocentrism often comes into conflict with anthropocentrism.

    Supreme Court of India upholds biocentric principles

    • The Great Indian Bustard is a gravely endangered species, with hardly about 200 alive in India today.
    • The overhead power lines have become a threat to the life of these species as these birds frequently tend to collide with these power lines and get killed.
    • Recently, the Supreme Court in M.K. Ranjitsinh & Others vs Union of India & Others, said that in all cases where the overhead lines in power projects exist, the governments of Rajasthan and Gujarat shall take steps forthwith to install bird diverters.
    • In protecting the birds, the Court has affirmed and emphasised the biocentric values of eco-preservation.
    • A noteworthy instance of the application of anthropocentrism in the legal world is in that of the “Snail darter” case in the United States.
    • The Supreme Court of the United States of America in Tennessee Valley Authority vs Hill, had held that since the “Snail darter” fish was a specifically protected species under the Act, the executive could not proceed with the reservoir project.

    Human role in extinction of species

    • About 50 years ago, there were 4,50,000 lions in Africa. Today, there are hardly 20,000.
    • Indiscriminate monoculture farming in the forests of Borneo and Sumatra is leading to the extinction of orangutans.
    • Rhinos are hunted for the so-called medicinal value of their horns and are slowly becoming extinct.
    • From the time humans populated Madagascar about 2,000 years ago, about 15 to 20 species of Lemurs, which are primates, have become extinct.
    • The compilation prepared by the International Union for Conservation of Nature lists about 37,400 species that are gravely endangered; and the list is ever growing.

    Evolution of Right of Nature laws in Constitutions

    • Pieces of legislation are slowly evolving that fall in the category of the “Right of Nature laws”.
    • These seek to travel away from an anthropocentric basis of law to a biocentric one.
    • The Constitution of India is significantly silent on any explicitly stated, binding legal obligations we owe to our fellow species and to the environment that sustains us.
    • It is to the credit of the Indian judiciary that it interpreted the enduring principles of sustainable development and read them, inter alia, into the precepts of Article 21 of the Constitution.
    • In September 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to recognise “Rights of Nature” in its Constitution.
    • Bolivia has also joined the movement by establishing Rights of Nature laws too.
    • In November 2010, the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania became the first major municipality in the United States to recognise the Rights of Nature.
    • These laws, like the Constitution of the countries that they are part of, are still works in progress.

    Conclusion

    In times like this the Supreme Court’s judgment in M.K. Ranjithsinh upholding the biocentric principles of coexistence is a shot in the arm for nature conservation. One does hope that the respective governments implement the judgment of the Court.

  • Speedy trial a fundamental right: HC

    The Bombay High Court has said that speedy trial is a fundamental right highlighting the issue of people languishing in prisons waiting for the trial to begin.

    Background

    • The HC was hearing a petition seeking a judicial probe into the death of a tribal rights activist.
    • The petitioner told the court that he was not looking for the cause of the death, but an inquiry into what happened in jail that ultimately led to his death.

    Right to speedy trial

    • It is a right under which it is asserted that a government prosecutor may not delay the trial of a criminal suspect arbitrarily and indefinitely.
    • Otherwise, the power to impose such delays would effectively allow prosecutors to send anyone to jail for an arbitrary length of time without trial.
    • Right to speedy trial is a concept gaining recognition and importance day by day.

    Its constitutional status

    • The right to speedy trial is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
    • In the case Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab (1961) it was declared that right to speedy trial is an essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty.
    • Article 21 declares that “no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to the procedure laid by law.”

    What causes delay?

    • Delay in disposition of cases due to huge pendency
    • Provision for adjournment
    • Vacation of the court
    • Investigative agencies generally delay

    Why speedy trial is necessary?

    The right to a speedy trial serves several important purposes:

    • First, requiring a speedy trial helps to ensure that a defendant does not have to spend an unreasonable amount of time in jail.
    • It also helps to respect and protect the mental health of the defendant by making sure that the defendant is not kept in suspense or anxiety over pending criminal charges for months or years at a time.
    • The right to a speedy trial protects a defendant’s ability to gather evidence for his or her own defense.
    • Over time, physical evidence can become harder and harder to locate, and witnesses may move, lose their memories of an event, or even pass away.

    Alternative solutions

    • The Law Commission of India and the Malimath Committee recommended that the system of plea bargaining should be introduced in Indian criminal justice system.
    • Plea bargaining refers to a person charged with a criminal offence negotiating with the prosecution for a lesser punishment than what is provided in law by pleading guilty to a less serious offence.
    • This will facilitate the speedy disposal of criminal cases and reduces the burden on the courts at least for some minor trials and not serious criminal offences.

  • Surveillance reform is the need of the hour

    Context

    The ‘Pegasus Project’ report says that over “300 verified Indian mobile telephone numbers, including those used by ministers, opposition leaders, journalists, the legal community, businessmen, government officials, scientists, rights activists and others”, were targeted using spyware made by the Israeli firm, NSO Group.

    Threat to press freedom

    • Revelations highlight a disturbing trend with regard to the use of hacking software against dissidents and adversaries.
    • A significant number of Indians reportedly affected by Pegasus are journalists.
    • This is not surprising since the World Press Freedom Index produced by Reporters Without Borders has ranked India 142 out of 180 countries in 2021. 
    • The press requires (and in democracies is afforded) greater protections on speech and privacy.
    • Privacy and free speech are what enable good reporting.
    • This has been recognised in Supreme Court decisions.
    • In the absence of privacy, the safety of journalists, especially those whose work criticises the government, and the personal safety of their sources is jeopardised.
    • Such a lack of privacy, therefore, creates an aura of distrust around these journalists and effectively buries their credibility.

    Issues with the legal provision

    • Provisions of law under the Indian Telegraph Act of 1885 and the Information Technology (IT) Act of 2000 are used by the government for its interception and monitoring activities. 
    • While the provisions of the Telegraph Act relate to telephone conversations, the IT Act relates to all communications undertaken using a computer resource.
    • Both provisions are problematic and offer the government total opacity in respect of its interception and monitoring activities.
    • Section 69 of the IT Act and the Interception Rules of 2009 are even more opaque than the Telegraph Act, and offer even weaker protections to the surveilled.
    • No provision, however, allows the government to hack the phones of any individual since the hacking of computer resources, including mobile phones and apps, is a criminal offence under the IT Act.

    Issues with surveillance system

    • Surveillance itself, whether under a provision of law or without it, is a gross violation of the fundamental rights of citizens.
    • Violation of freedom of speech: The very existence of a surveillance system impacts the right to privacy and the exercise of freedom of speech and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, respectively.
    • It prevents people from reading and exchanging unorthodox, controversial or provocative ideas.
    • No scope for judicial scrutiny: There is also no scope for an individual subjected to surveillance to approach a court of law prior to or during or subsequent to acts of surveillance since the system itself is covert.
    • No oversight: In the absence of parliamentary or judicial oversight, electronic surveillance gives the executive the power to influence both the subject of surveillance and all classes of individuals, resulting in a chilling effect on free speech.
    • Against separation of power: Constitutional functionaries such as a sitting judge of the Supreme Court have reportedly been surveilled under Pegasus.
    • Vesting such disproportionate power with one wing of the government threatens the separation of powers of the government.
    • The existing provisions are insufficient to protect against the spread of authoritarianism since they allow the executive to exercise a disproportionate amount of power.

    Way forward

    • There needs to be oversight from another branch of the government.
    • Judicial oversight: Only the judiciary can be competent to decide whether specific instances of surveillance are proportionate, whether less onerous alternatives are available, and to balance the necessity of the government’s objectives with the rights of the impacted individuals.
    • Surveillance reforms: Not only are existing protections weak but the proposed legislation related to the personal data protection of Indian citizens fails to consider surveillance while also providing wide exemptions to government authorities.
    • Surveillance reform is the need of the hour in India.

    Consider the question “Discuss the threats posed by the use of surveillance systems by the government. Suggest the measures to deal with these threats.”

    Conclusion

    The only solution to the problem of spyware is immediate and far-reaching surveillance reform.

  • Interference an investigating officer can do without

    Context

    Instances of judiciary directing the investigating officer point to the need for restraint from the judiciary.

    Challenging the discretion of investigating officer

    • There have been growing instances of subordinate judicial officers, and even High Courts sometimes, directing the investigating officer to effect the arrest of a particular individual.
    • To deal with the issue, the Supreme Court of India recently made the observation that courts have no authority to direct an investigating officer to in turn direct the arrest of any particular individual connected with a crime
    • This points to the need for a slightly kindlier view of police conduct and more latitude to them in the standard operating procedures which they follow, especially when they investigate a complicated crime.
    • The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) vests sufficient discretion in the investigating officer to take such decisions as arrests and searches.

    Issues with court’s directions

    • Court observations that smack of a lack of faith in police ability and integrity will make grass-root level policemen even more arbitrary than now and force them into carrying out questionable actions that will cast aspersions on an officer’s ability to think for himself.
    • Court interference in the day-to-day investigation is not only undesirable but is also not sanctioned by law.
    • Only the Supreme Court, has been vested with enormous authority and discretion by the Constitution, the lesser courts shall not give directions in the matter of arrests and searches.

    Safeguard against police misconduct

    • We need to educate the Executive and the common man that it is now well-established law that the police have to register an FIR.
    • It is mandatory that every police station in the land should register a complaint under the relevant sections of a statute the moment a cognisable offence is made out in the complaint
    • There is another safeguard against police misconduct.
    • The CrPC makes it obligatory for the investigating officer to write a diary that details the action taken every day following registration.
    • When in doubt, the competent court, which already has a copy of the first information report, can demand to see the case diary.
    • Courts should remember that the police are a well-established hierarchy that is obligated to ensure objectivity during a criminal investigation.
    • Every investigation is supervised by at least two immediate senior officers.

    Conclusion

    Judicial interference in an investigation is counterproductive to the idea of justice. Therefore, there is a need for allowing more freedom to the investigating officers in the standard operating procedure that they follow.