The Bharatiya Nagarik Surakhsha Sanhita Bill (BNSS), 2023, aims to tackle the criminal justice system’s long-standing problem of delays. To achieve this, the BNSS provides timelines for various stages of investigation and trial, and also attempts to push the use of technology and forensics. It also aims to adopt citizen-centric criminal procedures. While this objective is timely and sound, there are concerns about whether the proposed Bill adequately and effectively incorporates mechanisms to achieve these goals.
Dealing with delays
To address the delays and pendency of cases, the BNSS has introduced timelines for filing of chargesheet, framing of charges, delivering judgement through offline and online modes, commitment of cases, and discharge. For instance, a timeline of 90 days has been prescribed for filing a chargesheet, which can be further extended for a period of 90 days with the permission of the court. Similarly, judges may now be required to pronounce judgement within 30 to 60 days of completion of the arguments.
This, however, is not a significant departure from the existing procedure. Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973, already requires the investigation to be completed without unnecessary delay, with a 60-90-day timeline for submitting the chargesheet.
Data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shows that in 2021 and 2020, chargesheets for 60 per cent of cases under the Indian Penal Code cases and 74 per cent of cases under Special and Local Laws were filed within this timeframe. Furthermore, data from the National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) shows that only 8.78 per cent of the criminal cases are pending at the charge framing stage. This data shows that delays in submitting chargesheets are not a major contributor to case pendency. Instead, the cause of 58 per cent of delays is attributed to difficulties in securing the presence of the accused, witnesses, or parties. This, however, is also only partly addressed by the BNSS.
Further, the proposed amendments setting up these new timelines appear to be arbitrary and do not address the issue of pendency in a systematic manner. The approach also tends to reaffirm the narrative that the delays are caused due to inaction on the part of the investigative authorities or the judiciary in disposal of cases. It ignores the structural and infrastructural concerns that bug the system.
State of forensics
A major focus of the BNSS is to encourage use of forensic science in the investigative processes. For offences punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more, Clause 176 requires the officer in-charge of the police station to cause a forensics expert to visit the crime scene to collect forensic evidence. If properly executed, use of forensic science has a potential to significantly improve the quality of investigation.
However, there have been reports highlighting the financial, personnel and infrastructural inadequacies of Forensic Science Labs (FSL) in the country. Most of the FSLs are understaffed, with vacancies going over 70 per cent at some of them. Many of these labs also have high pendency rates, going up to 400 per cent.
Moreover, though guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of samples from the crime scene have been laid down, in the absence of proper training, the forensic examination is rendered useless. The FSLs have also attributed ‘no forensic value’ to many exhibits submitted by the police in the past.
Until standardised procedures are set up at each level and police officers trained, the inconsistencies in the
forensic evaluation of the evidence at different FSLs may become further causes of delays.
Use of technology
As per Clause 532 of BNSS, trials and proceedings may now be conducted through use of electronic means. Provisions for recording witness testimony and reading out charges to the accused through electronic means have also been incorporated. However, it is well acknowledged by the legislature and the judiciary that the infrastructure in the lower courts is not up to date to operationalise these provisions immediately. Although budget allocations for the E-courts project reflect ongoing efforts in this direction, it is a gradual process, signifying that it will take time to equip the courts to fully operationalise these provisions.
Need for an ecosystem approach
Delays in the judicial process frustrate the idea of justice. Through a series of Supreme Court cases, starting from Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979), the right to a speedy trial has been recognised as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The BNSS does introduce certain provisions that are likely to make the trial and investigation process smoother, but the need of the hour is an ‘ecosystems approach’; that is, an approach where citizen-centric procedures and policing methods, adequate resource allocation, capacity-building, digitalisation, and facilitating access to justice are all given due priority.
Further, leaving the implementation of all these provisions to the states, without laying down objective principles that the overall criminal system seeks to achieve, and adding extra responsibilities connected with digitalisation and introduction of technology, without increasing the current capacities, would further exacerbate the structural inequalities and inconsistencies in the system.
(The writer is an Associate Fellow at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy)
(This is the tenth article in a DH-Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy series on the proposed new criminal law codes)