Representattive image for law.
Credit: iStock Photo
The Supreme Court has flagged critical systemic failings in two recent cases that involved delayed and flawed delivery of justice. It highlighted the need for trial courts to frame charges within a stipulated time and raised the possibility of compensation for miscarriage of justice resulting from wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction. While hearing the case of a man who was jailed for 11 months because of delayed framing of charges, the Court said it had noticed that it took months or even years for charges to be framed in some cases. The law mandates a charge sheet to be filed in 60 days, and 90 days in more serious cases. If this deadline is not met, the accused is entitled to default bail. Police, at times, deliberately delay the filing of charges to help the accused under political or other pressures.
While the non-filing of charges is a subversion of justice, there is a bigger injustice in not framing the charges after they are filed. This keeps the accused in jail because of the failure of the court, the dispenser of justice, to frame the charges. This is one of the main reasons for the overcrowding of India’s prisons. The Court asked why lower courts were not following a timeline for framing the charges when the police were mandated to observe one for filing the charge sheets. It has proposed to issue pan-India guidelines for lower courts on the matter and sought assistance from the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The Court has also appointed two senior advocates as amici curiae in connection with the proposal.
In a different case, the Court addressed an even more complex question – should there be financial compensation for wrongful prosecution, prolonged incarceration, the resultant physical and mental suffering, and loss of reputation? While hearing the petitions of three people acquitted after being on the death row for years, it noted that many others were similarly left to suffer because of the system’s failures. There is no legal framework in the country to guide decisions in such cases, but courts have awarded compensation on an ad hoc basis. The Court, again, turned to the Attorney General and Solicitor General for assistance in this matter. Its view on the compensation question holds significance because the conviction rate in the country is just over 54%. It is to be noted that many countries provide compensation for victims of wrongful imprisonment, and the Law Commission has favoured it in India.