970x125
The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on the state of criminal investigation and prosecution in the country, lamenting that the justice system has come to rely on mere “optics” of arresting and jailing accused individuals, while neglecting institutional reforms, scientific investigation and witness protection mechanisms.
970x125
“We only send people to jail and feel there is an optics that criminal laws are working in the country… There is a colonial hangover in investigation and prosecution,” a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi remarked during the hearing of a plea filed by the Chhattisgarh government seeking revocation of interim bail granted to four accused in a case concerning an illegal levy on coal, including two suspended IAS officers and a former deputy secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office.
The court, which reserved its verdict on the plea, expressed grave concern over the lack of investment in forensic infrastructure, specialised prosecution wings and witness protection programmes. “The only way of protecting witnesses seems to be keeping the accused in jail. There is no investigating agency in the country which has invested in protecting witnesses so that the purity of criminal laws remains intact,” the bench lamented.
The court questioned the very foundation of current criminal prosecution strategies, noting that conviction is often sought through confessions rather than robust scientific evidence. “You want conviction to come only through confession. You want to keep them in jail and prove your cases through confession. Is this an archaic 18th or 19th century investigation?” the bench asked.
It emphasised that judges cannot function in a vacuum without adequate support from professional investigators and trained prosecutors. “The judge-population ratio should be ramped up. But where are the regulated specialised prosecution teams in any state? Where are the forensic experts?” It added that in the age of dark web and cryptocurrency scams, investigating agencies must equip themselves with modern tools and techniques.
Stressing the urgency for judicial reform, the bench added: “We need special courts with adequate infrastructure to deal with cases being prosecuted under special laws. The time has come for specialised courts. Provide the judges training and ensure they deliver time-bound judgments.”
The observations came in the context of the Chhattisgarh government’s appeal against the Supreme Court’s May 29 order, which granted interim bail to four accused — Suryakant Tiwari, Ranu Sahu, Sameer Vishnoi and Saumya Chaurasiya, in connection with a coal levy. The accused were alleged to be part of a cartel that extorted an illegal levy of ₹25 per tonne of coal transported through the state between 2020 and 2022.
Investigating agencies have claimed that the syndicate, allegedly led by businessman Tiwari, manipulated mineral transport policies and extorted roughly ₹540 crore over a two-year period. According to the agencies, the evidence includes WhatsApp chats, digital communications, and handwritten diaries.
Arguing for the Chhattisgarh government, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani contended that Tiwari was at the centre of the conspiracy and that “sufficient evidence,” including confessional statements, existed to justify revoking the interim bail.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Tiwari, countered that his client could not be made to languish in jail indefinitely when the trial was nowhere near commencing. “There is nothing wrong with the May 29 order,” he argued.
In its May 29 order, the top court directed that the four accused be released on interim bail, provided they furnish bail bonds to the trial court’s satisfaction. However, the bail was conditional: none of them was permitted to remain in Chhattisgarh, except when required to appear before the investigating agency or trial court.
The court had also ordered the accused to submit their passports, cooperate fully with the investigation, and not attempt to contact or influence witnesses. Any violation of these terms, the order noted, would be treated as misuse of the bail concession.
Notably, the same bench last month issued a stern warning to the Union and state governments, cautioning that the continued failure to establish exclusive special courts for cases investigated under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act and other stringent laws may leave courts with no option but to grant bail to undertrial prisoners, even in cases involving terror and heinous crimes. The bench had at the time underscored that in the absence of a judicial audit and coordinated executive planning, the justice delivery system was buckling under the weight of special law cases. The continued incarceration of undertrials without trial, the court said, amounted to a violation of their fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution — the right to life and personal liberty.
970x125
