Sisodia Bail Brings Into Focus Denial Of Right To Millions Of Incarcerated Undertrials

By K Raveendran

When the Supreme Court Chief Justice of Supreme Chandrachud says people are fed up with the way our courts function, there cannot be a more serious indictment of the judicial system. His assertion that the judiciary should not be an institution run solely by judges for judges is a significant critique that underscores systemic issues within India’s legal framework. The perspective is not just a reflection of personal discontent but an observation that has been echoed in the Supreme Court’s various judgments and statements over time.

CJI Chandrachud’s remarks, made at an event commemorating the week-long Special Lok Adalat at the Supreme Court last week, are particularly poignant when placed in the context of the court’s recent actions and observations. In the latest instance, the Supreme Court came down heavily against the denial of the right to a speedy trial to Delhi deputy chief minister, Manish Sisodia, who had been entangled in a legal battle that drew considerable attention. His case, while attracting significant media coverage, serves as a potent illustration of broader systemic issues. The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, is not merely about his individual rights but also a broader commentary on the judicial process.

Sisodia is, of course, a high-profile person, but consider the plight of millions of faceless undertrials languishing in Indian jails either without proper trial or the means to secure bail. Most of them, often from disadvantaged backgrounds, find themselves trapped in a legal limbo, with their cases delayed indefinitely. This situation is a stark reminder of how the judicial system’s failings impact those who lack the resources or visibility to attract immediate judicial intervention.

The issue of undertrial prisoners is not a new one, but it has gained renewed attention due to the Supreme Court’s recent observations and decisions. In many instances, undertrials remain in jail for extended periods without even the commencement of their trials, highlighting a significant flaw in the justice delivery system. This problem is exacerbated by delays in the judicial process, a shortage of judicial personnel, and systemic inefficiencies that prevent timely adjudication of cases.

In this context, CJI Chandrachud’s remarks reflect a critical need for reform. The judicial system, as it stands, appears to be struggling under the weight of its own procedural delays and inefficiencies. The criticism is not just about individual rights but about a systemic failure to deliver justice in a timely manner. The broader implications are significant. They point to a need for systemic change, addressing not only the procedural delays but also the inherent inefficiencies that plague the system. The judiciary’s role is not just to adjudicate but to ensure that justice is delivered fairly and expeditiously. When systemic issues undermine this role, it erodes public trust and confidence in the judicial process.

The judiciary must strive to be an institution that upholds the principles of justice for all, not merely a body that operates within the confines of its own procedural framework. The focus must shift towards making the system more accessible, efficient, and responsive to the needs of all individuals, regardless of their social or economic standing. No doubt, the challenges faced by the judicial system are complex and multifaceted. They require a concerted effort to address both immediate concerns, such as the plight of undertrials, and long-term structural issues. Efforts to streamline the judicial process, increase the number of judges and court personnel, and enhance procedural efficiency are crucial steps in this direction. Additionally, addressing the root causes of delays and inefficiencies, such as outdated procedures and inadequate infrastructure, will be essential in creating a more effective judicial system.

Recent statistics underscore the gravity of the situation. As of 2023, approximately 70 percent of India’s prison population consists of undertrials. This staggering figure highlights a critical issue: a large proportion of individuals in Indian jails have not yet faced a trial. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), more than 2.5 lakh people were undertrials as of the latest data. Many of these individuals have been in prison for extended periods, often exceeding the duration of the sentence they would have received if convicted.

The demographics of these undertrials reveal a troubling pattern. A significant number of them come from underprivileged sections of society. Studies have shown that poverty, lack of education, and socio-economic disadvantage are closely linked with prolonged detention. Many undertrials are from marginalized communities, including scheduled castes and tribes, and economically disadvantaged backgrounds. These individuals often lack the resources to secure legal representation or bail, leading to prolonged periods of incarceration without trial.

The issue of undertrials is compounded by the systemic problem of securing bail. Thousands remain in prison not because they are convicted, but because they cannot afford to arrange the security required for bail. The inability to post bail often stems from financial constraints, making it nearly impossible for many to secure their release. This financial barrier exacerbates the issue of overcrowded jails and contributes to the prolonged detention of individuals who may eventually be found innocent.

The plight of undertrials is a stark reminder of the judicial system’s failings. The system’s inefficiencies not only deny individuals their right to a fair and timely trial but also perpetuate a cycle of disadvantage that disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized. The inability to secure bail due to financial constraints underscores a significant barrier to justice and highlights the need for comprehensive reform.

Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach. Reforming the bail system to ensure that it does not disproportionately penalize those who cannot afford it is crucial. Additionally, streamlining the judicial process to reduce delays and increase efficiency is essential for ensuring that justice is delivered promptly. Investments in legal aid services and support for marginalized communities can also help mitigate some of the systemic barriers faced by undertrials. (IPA Service)